
    No. 8560.
    Thomas B. Rhodes vs. Chas. E. Black and S. W. Davis et al.
    It is the value of the thing claimed, and not the amount of the judgment sought to he sattisfied out of it, which determinates the jurisdiction of this Court, when title is asserted to the property. There being no allegation, no affidavit, no testimony to show the value of the property in this ease, the appeal is dismissed.
    APPEAL from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Carroll. Deloney, J.
    Plaintiff and Appellant not represented.
    
      J. M. Kennedy, for Defendant and Appellee, Chas. E. Black:
    If one of the parties to a contract or written obligation fail or refuse to sign, the obligation is not complete, and it is not binding on the others who have already affixed their signatures. Wells vs- Dill, 1 N. S. 592; Pothier on Obligations, Ho. 11; 4 A. 546; 2 A. 592; Curtis et> al. vs. Moss et al., 2 R. 307; G.H. S. 400.
    Injunctions are matters of strict law; and all proceedings prescribed by law to obtain this process must bo strictly complied with, under pain of nullity. The execution of a valid and binding bond is a condition precedent prescribed by law for the exercise of this process. C. P. Art. 304; V. S. & X. R. R. vs. Barksdale, 15 A. 467.
    Where the sale of specific property is enjoined by a third party claiming ownership, the law fixes the amount of the injuction bond at “ one-half over and above the estimated value thereof.” R. S. of 1870, Sec. 1748.
    Where the law fixes the amount of the bond, the judge cannot alter or vary it; no discretion is granted him. Mulain vs. Judge, 29 A. 793; 21 A. 65 ; 30 A. 314, 283.
    The rule, as one binds himself so shall he be bound, relates to conventional obligations only,. and does not apply to judicial bonds. H. D. 1023, Ho. 6
    Where a third party enjoins the sale of specific property upon the allegation of ownership, the value of the property seized, and not the amount of the debt for which the seizure was levied, determines the jurisdiction of the Court. State ex rel. Mills vs. Judge, 12 A. 48 ? 13 A. 510, 592 and 595; 5 A. 31.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

This is a petitory aetiou coupled with an injunction.

The plaintiff claims to be the owner of real estate against which executory process issued, in the suit of Black vs. Davis, these being the defendants herein.

From' a judgment dissolving the injunction; on a rule by Black, the plaintiff appeals.

The rule was based upon the following grounds :

1. The incompleteness of the bond, as not signed by all therein named as sureties.

2. The insufficiency in amount, hot being for one-half over and above the estimated value of the specific property, the sale of which was enjoined.

The appellee suggests that this Court has uo jurisdiction over the matter, there being no evidence of tbe value of the property.

We find in the record no certificate of the officer who made the seizure, no testimony, no allegation, no affidavit, to show the value of the property to be within our appellate jurisdiction, as a matter in dispute.

Where a third party enjoins the sale of property as belonging to Mm, it is the value of the thing claimed and not the amount of the judgment sought to be satisfied out of it, which determines the jurisdiction of this Court. 12 A. 48; 13 A. 510, 592, 595; 5 A. 31.

We feel bound prop rio motu to ignore the case.

It is, therefore, ordered, that the appeal be dismissed with costs.  