Robinson v. Aubert

The defendant and appellant assigns as an error apparent on the face of the record, that the order of seizure and *462sale in this case was granted for a sum not due to the plaintiff, and for which no mortgage or privilege existed in his favor.

The counsel for the plaintiff and appellee urges, that the order of seizure, as originally issued, was well taken, and would not, even without a remittitur, justify an appeal; for though no order had been given by the court, the plaintiff might have required a sale on terms corresponding with those of the contract. The plaintiff obtained an order of seizure…