
    Salter v. McHenry & Al.
    WhorQ there are irregularities in the proceedings of plaintiff in issuing a pkw'ies writ of seizure; and also in the defendant’s enjoining it for the whole, when it was admitted part of the sum claimed was due, the injunction will be dissolved at defendants’ costs. — C. P. 743; 2 N. S. 51; 2 A. 360, T63; 4 A. 150.
    Appeal from the court of the first district.
    This case commenced by an alias order of seizure and sale.
    The defendants enjoined on the ground that the seizui'e was for too much; not allowing a credit of $800 ; and for some other alleged irregularities. On the return of the writ “ stayed by injunction,” the plaintiff amended his petition, allowed the credit of $800, and obtained a pluries order of seizure. This was enjoined on the ground that the pluries writ issued without crediting the defendant with the costs previously incurred; and also on the ground that the property was not duly advertised and that the three days notice before seizure was not given to defendant.
    The district judge decided, that as to the costs,' whether the plaintiff should pay them or not might be determined after the suit, or at any other time, and. néed not be credited on the writ; that the lots were properly advertised ; and that the sheriff’s return showed the defendant had a new notice of seizure. There was judgment dissolving the injunction with damages and costs. The defendant appealed.
    
      Potts for the plaintiff.
    
      McHenry contra.
   Makcis, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

On an alias writ of seizure and sale being taken out in this case, the defendants obtained an injunction to stay it, on the ground that they had not been allowed credit for a partial payment he had made, for the sum of eight hundred dollars. This writ was returned “ stayed by injunction.” Shortly after, a, pluries writ was obtained, the .demand having been reduced by [508] allowing the credit of eight hundred dollars claimed by the defendants. This was enjoined on an allegation that the credit had not been given to the defendants for the costs previously incurred ; that the sale had not been advertised in a newspaper printed in the city of New Orleans, and that the three days notice or demand required by law to be given before seizure, had not been given in this case. The injunction was dissolved and the dofendants appealed.

I. The alias writ of seizure having been enjoined, the plaintiff should have procured the dissolution of the injunction for the balance due after deducting the partial payment of eight hundred dollars, which he had received. He, however-, incorrectly obtained a pluries writ; but the defendants with very ill grace sought to turn the plaintiff round on account of this irregularity. They had themselves incorrectly obtained an* injunction against the whole of plaintiff’s demand, while they had only a right to enjoin but a portion of it.

II. We think with the district judge that the costs of the previous proceedings were not necessarily to be credited on the pluries executory proceedings. The plaintiff in the executory proceedings was probably chargeable with some, or even all the costs, but that fact peed not appear on the writ. It might be settled or adjusted after sale.

III. The premises seized were advertised in a newspaper printed in the parish of Jefferson, where they were situated, and the sale was to be made.

IY. The three days notice of seizure under the pluries writ is shown to have been given to the defendant by the sheriff’s return, according to the provisions of the 736th article of the Code of Practice.

The injunction was therefore properly dissolved.

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