
    No. 6686.
    STATE, EX REL., SOUTHERN PUBLISHING COMPANY vs. HON. T. C. W. ELLIS, JUDGE, ET AL.
    Syllabus.
    Oil Motion To Fix.
    •Under the rules of this Court writs of mandamus, prohibition and the like, must be submitted on briefs on the return day-fixed in the preliminary order or rule to show cause.
    D. H. Theard, for relators.
    Per Curiam.
    Tine rules of this Court provide (Rule 12, Section 3) that “.all writs of mandamus, prohibition, and the like, shall be fixed and submitted on printed or written briefs, and without oral argument.”
    The uniform practice of this Court has been to consider the return .day fixed in the preliminary order, or rule to show cause, as a “fixing” of the writ within the meaning of the foregoing rule, and to require all such writs to- be submitted on said return day.
    We perceive no error in this practice, which we are informed is in accord with the practice of the Supreme Court under a similar rule of that 'Court- (Rule 12, Section 3, Rules of the Supreme Court).
    The motion to fix for a day other than the return day was therefore properly denied.
    Opinion and decree, March 16th, 1916.
    Syllabus.
    On Application for Prohibition.
    A married woman, whose only asset consists of a piece of real estate donated to her during marriage by her husband who still lives, is not a sufficient surety on an appeal bond, as the purchaser of such property even under execution acquires no title to the property until after prescription has run.
    Opinion and decree, March 27th, 1916.
    Rehearing refused, April 12th, 1916.
    Writ denied, May 24th, 1916.
   His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the ’Court, as follows:

Reiator appealed suspensively. The trial Judge dismissed the appeal for want of a good and sufficient surety on the appeal bond. Hence this application.

The surety was a married woman and her only property consisted of a piece of real estate given to her during marriage by her husband who still lives.

The surety is not sufficient. The property owned by her and revocable at any time by her husband is not liable to seizure, that is to say, to such effective seizure as will profit the person effecting the seizure, since no sale thereof under execution conveys title to the purchaser who cannot be defeated until cured by prescription of ten years.

Leverett vs. Loeb, 117 La., 310.

The preliminary writ herein issued is recalled and relators application for prohibition is dismissed.  