
    PEYTAVIN vs. WINTER.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE JUDGE THEREOF PRESIDING.
    An injunction will not be granted to stay execution on a judgment for damages, for causes which existed before judgment was rendered.
    So, where the plaintiff in execution had a judgment for damages sustained by him in consequence of the defendant obstructing the natural drain of waters from his front tract of land by stopping certain ditches leading from it over the back land claimed by both parties, and the defendant afterwards obtains the title to the disputed premises, an injunction will not be allowed him to stay execution on the judgment for damages.
    
      This case comes up on an appeal from the refusal of the ¿igtñct judge to grant the defendant an injunction as prayed foj-_
    The facts show that Peytavin had issued his fieri facias against Winter, on a judgment for 1500 dollars in damages, which the former obtained in an action of trespass against the latter, for trespassing on his premises, and stopping certain ditches which Peytavin used to drain his front lands through the rear into the swamp. See the case and judgment in 6 Louisiana Reports, 553.
    
      Winter presented a petition to the judge of the Second Judicial District, alleging that this judgment had been obtained through error, as the back tract of land through which these drains run, and which was then in dispute between them, had since been patented to him by the government of the United States; and that he was now the true owner thereof and had a right to enter on it. He further shows that his evidence of title to this land was erroneously rejected on the trial; that the judge omitted to establish the boundary between them; and, also, that he refused to sign certain bills of exception on the trial of this case. He prays that the execution and judgment of Peytavin be perpetually enjoined, and that he be declared to be the true owner of the land which had been the subject of contestation between them; and that Peytavin be required to stop up the ditches complained of and restrained from draining his front lands into, or through the tract now claimed by the petitioner as being the true owner; and that he have a judgment for damages sustained by him, &c.
    The district judge refused to grant the injunction, being of opinion, that the allegations contained in the petition, did not authorise it. Winter, the applicant for injunction, appealed.
    
      Winter in propria personó,.
    
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the refusal of the district judge to grant an injunction to stay proceedings on an execution issued in the case of Peytavin vs. Winter, on a judgment pronounced by this court. See 6 Louisiana Reports, 553.

An injunction -willnotbegranted to stay execuSf.* for causes which existed before judgment

plaintiff in exejudgment8** for ed^by^him^in consequence of obstructing- the front lTact land, by stopping certain fromu’overol tackiand claimed by both parties, and the deward™* obtains ^*® ses.aninjunction iowed^hini *&> stay execution on the judgment for damages.

The only question we aré to examine is, whether the petition presented for that purpose, discloses such facts as would authorise the issuing of an injunction. The petitioner represents that the judgment in favor of Peytavin was obtained in error, as the tract of land in dispute is now patented to him by the United States, and that the evidence of his title was rejected on trial, by the parish judge who presided, and who also refused to sign certain bills of exception, although presented to him before the rendition of the judgment, and not three days thereafter, as erroneously supposed by the Supreme Court.

On these allegations, the appellant asked of the District Court to open the judgment and grant an injunction : and, „ „ , J r ° . , , ’ ’ finally, that the premises m dispute might be decreed to be Ms property.

We are of opinion the district judge did not err in refusing . 1 jo o the injunction: no fact is set forth in the petition which arose after the judgment, unless it be the issuing of a patent for the land, in favor of the appellant. The judgment rendered by the District Court was reversed in this, and the question of title expressly left open. The court then considered the gist of that action to be the damages sustained by Peytavin, in consequence of the act of the defendant obstructing the natural drain of waters from his front tract of land, by stopping certain ditches leading from it, over the , , , : 1 • 1 , , , • ,,, , . , , back lands, claimed by both parties. We then considered that the question of title was not fairly before the court by the pleadings, and that so much of the verdict as related to • 1 r • 1 , T , , , , . title, might be disregarded, and so much of it as assessed damages for the trespass, ought not to be disturbed. The question of ownership is, therefore, still open for investigation, under the alleged patent on the one hand, and the purchase from the United States on the other: but the judgment rendered by this court, on the question of damages, must 1 o’ have its effect, whatever may ultimately be shown to be the rights of the parties, as to the locus in quo; and we are of opinion the injunction was properly refused.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.  