Hicks v. Lowery
128 So. 540, 13 La. App. 580, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 200
This text of 128 So. 540 (Hicks v. Lowery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Hicks v. Lowery, 128 So. 540, 13 La. App. 580, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 200 (La. Ct. App. 1930).
Opinion
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Defendant appealed devolutively from an order of seizure and sale under executory process. Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the writ has been executed and the mortgaged property sold.
In the case of Trimble vs. Chavis, 11 La. App. 208, 123 So. 513, 514, we said:
“Inasmuch as the mortgage has already been foreclosed, the writ executed, and the property sold, this devolutive appeal can avail appellant nothing. She is without interest to prosecute it further. If this court should reverse the judgment appealed from, it would not have the effect of undoing that which has been done — that is, of annulling the sale of the mortgaged property already made. Ouachita Nat. Bank v. Shell Beach Construction Co., 154 La. 709, 98 So. 160; Gouaux v. Lockport Central Sugar Ref. Co., Ltd., 156 La. 889, 101 So. 255; Jones et ux v. Bouanchaud, Sheriff, et al., 158 La. 27, 103 So. 393.
“There are only two methods by which a defendant in executory proceedings can stay the execution of a writ; one is to appeal suspensively and give bond, and the other is to enjoin the sale, setting up the grounds for relief. D.efendant did not take a suspensive appeal, but asked for and was granted a devolutive appeal. * * *”
It is therefore ordered that the appeal be dismissed, at appellant’s cost.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Jones v. Bouanchaud
103 So. 393 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1924)
Ouachita Nat. Bank v. Shell Beach Const. Co.
98 So. 160 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1920)
Gouaux v. Lockport Central Sugar Refining Co.
101 So. 255 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1924)
Trimble v. Chavis
123 So. 513 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1929)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
128 So. 540, 13 La. App. 580, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-lowery-lactapp-1930.