dissenting. The relator injoined under articles 739 and ■740 Code of Practice the order of seizure and sale sued out by J. Frank Pargoud against her to enforce a special mortgage. At the trial the *657court dissolved the injunction without damages, and the relator sought to take a suspensive appeal from the judgment, tendering a bond sufficient for costs and for damages for frivolous appeal. The court, however, refused to allow a suspensive appeal, unless the relator would furnish bond for one-half over and above the amount of the mortgage debt for which the order of seizure and sale issued.
The question is, was the relator bound to furnish the bond required by the judge 1
As no appeal was sought from the order of seizure and sale, no bond was necessary to stay the execution thereof — that had already been ■suspended by the injunction. The question is what bond is necessary to suspend the judgment dissolving the injunction 1
That was the precise question presented in the case of State, ex rel. 'Stackhouse, v. Judge of Fifth District Court (21 An. 152). And there, after examining the authorities, this court held that a bond for one-half over and above the amount of the judgment dissolving the injunction will be sufficient for a suspensive appeal. This is all that is required by article 575 Code of Practice.
The bond tendered by the relator, in my opinion, was ample; and the judge had no right to require a bond for one-half over and above the amount of the order of seizure and sale. But, it is urged, that the injunction was obtained under articles 739 and 740 Code of Practice, without bond, and that if the relator gets a suspensive appeal there will be no security for the amount of the executory process injoined.
To this the reply is, the injunction issued according to law, there being no question that the relator complied with the requirement of articles 739, 740. If the law permits an injunction of executory process in certain cases without bond, the judge has no right to defeat the law, because, in his opinion, there should be some security tor the mortgage creditor pending the litigation of the injunction suit.
If the law-giver had intended additional security to be given to maintain the injunction granted under articles 739, 740, during a protracted litigation arising from an appeal having been taken from the judgment dissolving the injunction, or arising from any other cause, a provision to that effect would have been inserted in the law.
In the absence of any such provision limiting the right conferred by articles 739 and 740 C. P., I am of the opinion that the suspensive ■appeal sought by the relator must be granted pursuant to article 575 C. P., which only requires bond for one-half over and above the amount of the judgment dissolving the injunction. Such a bond has been tendered by the relator. But the judge a quo says: no, the amount of the bond is not to be measured, in this case, by the amount •of the judgment in the injunction suit which you seek to appeal from, but the amount of the bond must be measured by the amount of another judgment or order of seizure and sale staid by the injunction.
*658Now, I maintain that this ruling violates the express provisions of article 575 and the well settled adjudications of this Court, to the effect that, in determining the amount of a bond for a suspensive appeal, the amount of the judgment sought to be appealed from alone must be considered.
The effect of a suspensive appeal from the judgment dissolving the injunction in this case, would be to leave the writ granted under articles 739 and 740 in full force until the fiual disposition of the case in this Court. Now, whether such an appeal will subject the mortgage creditor to loss unless a bond be given to secure the debt, or whatever hardship may occur to him on account thereof, is a question not to be considered by the Court. The only proper view of the subject is, the law allows the injunction without bond, and the law allows a suspensive appeal with a bond for one-half over and above the amount of the judgment dissolving the injunction. If the enforcement of the law, in the case under consideration, produces hardship or loss to the mortgage creditor, the court must, nevertheless, enforce the law. We have no. right to deny the relator a suspensive appeal, in view of the bond which she tenders conformably to article 575 C. P.
The right to an injunction and the right to an appeal are given by the law upon the conditions therein required. The relator in this case has complied with the law, and, in my judgment, is entitled to a suspensive appeal. I therefore dissent in this case.