Stockelback v. Bradley

Stewart v. Paulding, 7 La. 506, and Duncan v. Armant, 3 La. Ann. 84, are. not precedents for the decision proposed to be rendered in this ease. They are not authority for the proposition that article 2611 of the Civil Code means that 10 days’ advertisement will suffice for a sale of real estate, a la folie enchere.

Stewart v. Paulding was a jury case. The district judge’s charge to the jury, as to the meaning of article 2611 (then 2589), was not correct, but that is not the reason why the Supreme Court refused to set aside the verdict. The reason was, first, that the judge had “stated the law…