Lobdell v. Union Bank

Citations

• 8 La. Ann. 117

Syllabus

<p>Plaintiff made opposition to the sale of two slaves, seized by Lewis, Sheriff, in the suit of the Zfiiion, Bmxh v. Hereford, in the District Court of East Baton Rouge, in which Court he claimed damages against the defendants—alleging the slaves to be his property. Defendants excepted to the jurisdiction, on the ground that their domicil was in New Orleans.</p> <p>By the Court. The plaintiff’s claiming title to the slaves seized, the opposition was properly made by petition to the Court from which the order issued, as required by Article 898, of the Code of Practice; and Article 400, of the same Code, expressly provides, that if the sale has not been enjoined, the opposition shall not prevent the Sheriff from selling the property under seizure, but in such case he shall be personally responsible for all damages which the sale may occasion the intervening party, anil the Sheriff shall have his recourse against the party who has obtained the seizure.</p> <p>When the Sheriff sells property, to the sale of which opposition has been made, the opponent can recover the property from the purchaser. His claim against the Sheriff is for the damages which the sale may have occasioned him—not for the value of the property sold.</p>