
    H. Kellogg v. J. P. McMillan and Wife.
    The defendant, in a petitory action, is estopped from setting up the irregularities in a Sheriffs sale, after a formal recognition of tlie title of the plaintiff’s vendor under that sale.
    APPEAL from the Third District Oourt of the Parish of Jefferson, Gla/rke, J.
    
      7. F. & J. B. Ootton, for plaintiff.
    
      Purvis & Dugu'e, for defendant and appellant!
    It is plain that this judgment is impossible of execution, for uncertainty, and must therefore be reversed.
    A judgment, condemning the defendant to pay rent from the inception of the suit until he surrender possession of the premises, is ei'roneous, as there is no way by which the Sheriff can ascertain whether defendant held possession beyond the date of the judgment, or for how long. 2 L. 405. T L. 409.
    
      
      
        Judgment of the District Cov/rt. — It is ordered and adjudged, that the plaintiff be recognized and decreed to be the owner of the lot and the property described in his petition, and that he be put into possession by the Sheriff as prayed, and recover from the defendants i/n solido rent for the use of the premises, at the rate of twenty-five dollars per month, from June 9,1852, until the plaintiff is put into possession, with costs of this suit.
    
   Buchanan, J.

This is a petitory action. The plaintiff proves title from Elisha, Groeker, who purchased at Sheriff’s sale, in execution of a judgment against Mrs. McMillan, one of the defendants. The latter has argued, by counsel, before this court, that the proceedings which resulted in the sale by the Sheriff, were irregular and void; but it is unnecessary to go into an examination of this ground of defence, inasmuch as the record shows a formal recognition of Groeker's title, under the said Sheriff’s sale, made by both the defendants in a notarial act of sale from Elisha Groeker to Mrs. MeMillan ; in which conveyance, the Sheriff’s sale in question is recited as the basis of Crocker's title. This recognition was mad e several months before the presen suit was brought.

We think that justice has been done by the judgment of the District Court, which is therefore affirmed, with costs.  