
    SAILLARD vs. WHITE.
    APPEAL FOM THE PARISH COURT, FOR THE PARISH AND. CITY OF NEW-ORLEANS.
    In proceeding by a writ of seizure and sale against mortgaged property, which has passed into the hands of a third possessor, three days notice must, in all such cases, be given to the defendant, after seizure, before the property is advertised for sale.
    This is an executory proceeding, against a lot of ground in the hands of a third possessor. The plaintiff alleges in his petition that he sold to one Robert Turner, a lot of ground, and received his notes, payable by instalments for the price, and retained a special mortgage to secure payment : that about nine hundred dollars remains due on the first note, &c.; which he has in vain demanded payment of said Turner, for more than thirty days ; and prays that an order of seizure and sale issue against said lot, now in the possession of the defendant; and that it be seized and sold to satisfy his demand.
    On the 4th June, after the writ and proceeding had been duly notified to the defendant, and the legal delay allowed, for him to pay the demand, a rule was taken by the plaintiff on him, to show cause why the property should not be seized and sold, in conformity with the prayer of the petition.
    On the 20th August, the sale under the writ of seizure was arrested by an injunction, principally on the ground that the defendant never received from the sheriff the three days notice required by law, after seizure, and before advertising tbe property for sale.
    On a rule taken by the plaintiff to have the injunction dissolved, it was discharged, and the injunction perpetuated. The plaintiff appealed.
    
      J3odin, for the appellant,
    insisted, that the three days notice after seizure, before advertising, was not required in cases like this, of an order of seizure and sale, and cited judge Martin’s dissenting opinion, in the case of Grant & Olden vs. Walden. 6 Louisiana Reports, 623.
    In proceeding’ by a unit of seizure and sale against mortgaged property, which has pass-edinto thehands of a third possessor, three days «otócemust in all such cases, be £*iven to the defendant a/iter seizure, before the property is advertised for sale.
    
      Cohen, contra,
    relied on the case of Grant & Olden vs. Walden, in 6 Louisiana Reports, 623, as conclusive in favor of the defendant; also, Code of Practice, article 745.
   Rost, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioner obtained an order of seizure, on a mortgage retained by him upon property which had since passed into the hands of a third possessor. Due notice having been given to the said third possessor, the sheriff proceeded to seize the mortgaged property, and advertised it to be sold at public auction, without giving the defendant three days notice between the seizure and the’;|advertisement. The defendant enjoined the sale upon that ground.

The petitioner took a rule upon the defendant, to show cause why the injunction should not be set aside and dissolved. The rule was tried, and the court of the first instance, considering that the three days notice, required by law, after the seizure, and before the advertisement, had not been given to the defendant, discharged the rule, and the plaintiff appealed.

This case is not to be distinguished from that of Grant & Olden vs. Walden, 6 Louisiana Reports, page 623, in which it was held, that after the seizure, three days notice must, in all cases, be given to the defendant, before the property seized is advertised. This question may, when it was first presented to this court, have admitted of some doubt; but we will now abide by the former decision.

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