
    Hill v. Noe.
    Eees paid to counsel for prosecuting an injunction’ against an illegal order of seizure and sale cannot be recovered by the plaintiff against tile defendant, where the injunction is maintained. ■ j
    APPEAL, by the defendant, from a judgment of'tlie District Court of Jefferson, Clarice, J., maintaining1’an' injunction taken out against an order of seizure illegally issued.
    
      Brewer, for the plaintiff.
    
      Marks, and Iliestand, for the appellant'.
   The judgment of the court (King, J.'absent,) was pronounced by

Sumí,, J.

The order of seizure and Bale upon which the various writs issued was irregular. Hill was dead when the suit was instituted; yet he was named as the defendant in the cause. The pluries writ was objectionable on the additional ground that, when it issued the decree enjoining Not stood unreversed.

The only change which the judgment requires is, as to the allowance of $150 as damages for the expense incurred by the plaintiff, for professional services in prosecuting this suit. See Smith v. Bradford, 17 La. 266.

It is, therefore, decreed that the judgment of the District court be amended, by striking therefrom the allowance of $150; and that, in other respects, the •judgment be affirmed; the costs of the appeal to be paid by the succession;  