
    THE STATE vs. JUDGE LEWIS.
    ■ V"
    
      Morel read’the affidavit'of. P. Tricou, stating that in the month of,Áu^ást’.last* in. quenqe of an advertisement published in the newspapers,, the sheriff of the parish df j^ríeaus, exposed to sale a tract of land, situatedin that parish, seized in the -spit .of -Dumfofd -Ifti.De-•gruya: the deponent, J, Tricon, and D*. BoU-ligny, became purchasers of said tract, which Was adjudicated to them for the sum of &70Q dollars, and in consequence* they took possession of it; whereupon, one J, Jourdan, claiming title thereto, has instituted a sui aaain^t ’them therefor, which is now pending in the court of the first district whereby they árela danger df being£ evicted from Ufe best part, of -tsie land, i be instil u|ion or this suit%ppearing to (hem a' just motive to withhold the purchase money, they offered to deposit it to the order of ‘be court ;; but tbeij application therefor Was overruled, -arid a ■ venditioni exponas wag ffi-reeled to issue for a second sale, when yi order to prevent it, under •the..|^lief that, lain tiff in the exeru ion was able-to refund the money ■ ⅞ . ” ' .. . in%ase, of eviction, theypud to the sheriff the aforesaid sum, who having'-received it made his return of the: venditioni exponas accordingly ; and they hoped no further proceeding would he had thereon. But the said DurufofdT the plain-.tiifin the execution, took a rule on the she iff to shew cause1 why he should not be ordered o pr ceed %n(i sell the land ; and, after an argument, ⅛ 'which . they intervened, the district cou^prdeVed, a second venditioni exponas (o i|sué¿ and the land' is accordingly advertised foivsaie. Thinking themselves aggrieved, they moved for an injunction, which being denied, they presented a petition to the judge of sa d court for an appeal, who refused to allow it, although a bond with surety Was offered.
    On thisjaffidavit a rule .wSfcs granted on tfe¿ district judge, to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue; conuuanuing him to allow, tile-’ appeal.
    
      He aec»»l rigty she ⅝ eil cáüse that the applicants weir pot parties to the suit, and conse-(pnriily were not entitled to an appeal.
    
      Hennen, of counsel against>the rule, observed i hat the record did not even shew that ..the applicants were the party who had opposed ine last order.
    
      Morel replied, that it was otherwise, and they were certainjy entitled to bring, uo< the causé, but the decision of the district court, on,.. .this motion, before the supreme court.
   Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The proceedings were certainly condueteíl very loosely, but the record which has been.submitted to us, enables us to ascertain who were the applicants and their character P. L/Morelj-an attorney in the district court, moved for'the inbAition of the sale; the entry does not mention whose attorney he was : but the sheriff’s reiurp shews that the applicants were the last bidders at the sheriff’s sale, and the reasoning in the opinion of the court that the motion overruled was that of these bidders.

If the bidders application was overruled, •they have the right of bringing, it under the consideration of this court. The dis^-ici judge, erred in disallowing‘¡their ,prayers, for ' , c"' .1 ' an appeal. Let the mandamus issue*.  