
    Wilson et al. v. Churchman.
    Whatever may be the right of a party to appeal at once from a refusal to set asirle a sequestrátion by which his property is actually detained in legal custody; it cannot be extended to the case of one who lias been restored to possession by giving bond. It cannot be said that the judgment works, or may work, an irreparable injury, which is the test by which to determine whether an appeal will lie from an interlocutory judgment before a trial on the merits.
    from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Strawbridge, L
    
      Hunton and Micou, for the plaintiffs.
    
      T. R. Wolfe, Lockett and Gooldj for the appellants.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

A sequestration having been levied upon goods, Gilchrist bonded them, and a rale was then taken by the defendant and Gilchrist, to show cause why the sequestration should not be set aside. Upon hearing, the court dismissed the rule; and from this refusal to set aside the sequestration, the defendant and third opponent appealed.

Whatever may the right of a party to appeal at once from the refusal to set aside a sequestration, by which his property is actually detained in legal custody, we think the right should not be extended to a case where the party has been restored to the possession by giving bond. It cannot be said, in such a case, that the judgment works, or may work, an irreparable injury; which is the proper test in determining whether an interlocutory judgment is appealable, before a trial on the merits. See Hart v. Philips, 1 Rob. 223.

Considering the present appeal premature, it is therefore dismissed, at the cost of the appellants;  