Opinion of the court. The summons not having been served on the defendant ̧ as provided by statute, the default of the defendant in the Twelfth District Court was irregularly entered, and the judgment was void.* 2. A municipal corporation cannot be sued except as allowed to be by statute;t and under the charter of Sacramento, the bondholders took, subject to the contingency, that the charter might be so altered that they must look to payment of their claims without an action of the ordinary kind at law against the city. Mr. H. F. Durant, contra. Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court. That the summons was served in conformity with the California Process Act we think quite clear. If the president of the board of trustees, is not the "head of the corporation," it is difficult to see who is, for no other executive or head officer is named in the charter. Indeed, it would seem that a service upon any officer of less grade would not be a compliance with the statute. The legislature doubtless intended, in pursuauce of a wise public policy, to guard the city from the consequences which have sometimes followed legislation permitting suits to be prosecuted against municipal corporations where process was served upon any officer of the city government. It is easy to see that in such a case the public interests might suffer, but no reasonable apprehension could be indulged in this regard if the chief officer intrusted by the people with the management of their affairs was notified of the pendency of judicial proceedings. The decision on this point disposes of the case, for if the service was in conformity with the statute, the court had jurisdiction of the party and the subject-matter, and the judgment is conclusive against the city, until reversed on direct proceedings, by the Supreme Court of the State. Galpin v. Page, 18 Wallace, 350. Mitchell v. City of Rockland, 52 Maine, 118; Sharp v. County of Contra Costa, 34 California, 284; Webster v. Reid, 11 Howard, 437. Statement of the case. It is hardly necessary to say that the question of the original liability of the city on the bonds sued upon is not open here. If the city had any defence to make to them, it should have been made when suit was brought against it in the State court. Judgment afFIRMED. WATSON V. BONDURANT. 1. By the law of Louisiana, as held by her courts, it is indispensably necessary, in order to make a valid sale of land under a foreclosure of a mortgage, that in all parishes, except Jefferson and Orleans, there should be an actual seizure of the land; not perhaps an actual turning out of the party in possession, but some taking possession of it by the sheriff more than a taking possession constructively. 2. Under the arrangement, known in Louisiana as the "pact de non alienando," the mortgagee can proceed to enforce his mortgage directly against the mortgagor, without reference to the vendee of the latter. But the vendee has sufficient interest in the matter to sue to annul the sale, if the forms of law have not been complied with by the mortgagee of his vendor in making the sale. 8. Where a return in a record, purporting to be a sheriff's return to a fieri facias, alleges that under a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage the sheriff seized the mortgaged premises, but does not purport to be signed by the sheriff, the return is traversable, and if the law requires an actual seizure, it may be shown that none was made. ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana. Walter Bondurant brought this action against one Watson, in the court below, to recover possession of a lot of land containing one hundred and sixty acres, in the parish of Tensas, Louisiana. The case was thus: Daniel Bondurant, owning a large plantation in the said parish of Teusas, died intestate, leaving three sons, Horace, Albert, and John, and also a grandson, the plaintiff, then an infant, and coheir with them. In 1852 the sons sued for a partition, and a decree of sale was ordered. A sale was made, Statement of the case. and the sons bid off the plantation for $150,000, of which sum the plaintiff was entitled, as one heir of his grandfather, to a fourth, or $37,500. The sheriff, on the 4th day of December, 1852, executed to the sons a deed, reserving a special mortgage on the lands as security for the payment to the plaintiff of his share of the purchase-money when he should come of age, which would be in March, 1862. In the act of sale, which was executed by the sheriff and the purchasers, the latter bound themselves not to alienate, deteriorate, or incumber the property to the prejudice of the mortgage, which covenant is called, in Louisiana law, the "pact de non alienando," and dispenses with the necessity of making any persons other than the mortgagors parties to a judicial proceeding upon the mortgage. This mortgage was duly recorded on the 6th of December, 1852. Regularly, it should have been reinscribed within ten years from that time. But it was not reinscribed until September, 1865; the plaintiff alleging, by way of excuse, the existence of the civil war, and that he was prevented by "vis major," from reinscribing it. Meantime, the sons divided the plantation between themselves, and the tract in question was set off to John Bondurant, who, in 1854, conveyed it to Watson, the defendant, who had been in possession thereof ever since. On the 30th of January, 1866, the plaintiff commenced an action against his uncles in the District Court, parish of Tensas, for the recovery of $37,500, the amount of his mortgage, and obtained a judgment against them, under which the sheriff sold all the property mortgaged, including the tract for which the present suit was brought. Under this sale the plaintiff now claimed the land in controversy. The judgment was rendered November 14th, 1867. A fieri facias was issued, directed to the sheriff of the parish. This writ was produced in evidence, and had attached thereto a statement, unsigued, purporting to be a return, as follows: "Reccived the 9th December, 1867, and served this writ as follows, to wit: I seized, on the 25th day of December, A.D. 1867, the following described property belonging to defendants, Statement of the case. to wit (describing the entire plantation). On the 28th day of December, 1867, I advertised said property for sale at the courthouse door, in this parish, on Saturday, the 1st of February, A.D. 1868, for cash, &c. I offered said property for sale, when Walter Bondurant bid," &c. The sheriff's deed to the plaintiff was also offered in evidence, which recited the same facts. The defendant proved, and the fact is found by the court, that there was no actual seizure of the property in dispute, the sheriff of the parish of Tensas not being in the habit of making actual seizures, and the only notice of seizure was by posting upon the court-house door a notice of seizure to the said Horace, Albert, and John Bondurant, as absentees, and that the defendant had no knowledge of any proceeding to divest his title until March, 1869, long after the sale. Upon these facts the defendant requested the court below to decide that a reinscription of the mortgage within ten years was necessary to its validity, but the court held that the period of the war of rebellion was to be deducted from the period prescribed for the reinscription of mortgages. The defendant also requested the court to decide— 1st. That it is essential to the validity of a sheriff's return to a writ of execution that it should be signed by him or his deputy, in order to validate an adjudication of sale. 2d. That in order to make valid a sale of tangible property in all the parishes of Louisiana, except Orleans and Jefferson, there must be an actual seizure by the sheriff on execution. 3d. That in order to divest the title of the defendant, notice of seizure, upon Bondurant at least, if not upon the defendant, was essential. But the court ruled that inasmuch as the mortgage contained the pact de non alienando, the defendant was not to be considered in possession against the plaintiff, and that it did not matter what irregularities were in the sheriff's proceedings in selling the property, as Watson could not avail himself of them. Opinion of the court. Judgment having been given accordingly for the plaintiff, Watson brought the case here. Messrs. G W. Race and E. T. Merrick, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. C. L. Walker, contra. Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court. Without adverting to the other questions raised by the defendant, we are of opinion that the court erred in declining to allow the objection as to the want of seizure under the execution. The law of Louisiana seems to us very clearly to require an actual seizure in the country parishes. The parishes of Orleans and Jefferson are an exception, and that very exception makes the existence of the rule in other parishes more clear and distinct. The act of 1857 declares that in the parishes of Jefferson and Orleans "the registry in the mortgage office shall be deemed and considered as the seizure and possession by the sheriff of the property therein described, and it shall be unnecessary to appoint a keeper thereof." This act is itself constructive of the force and effect of the general law. That law (Code of Practice, Article 642) prescribes the form of the writ of fieri facias, which must command the sheriff to seize the property of the debtor. Article 643 declares that "as soon as the sheriff has received this writ he must execute it without delay by seizing the property of the debtor." The code then goes on to direct the sheriff as to further proceeding. He must give notice to the debtor to appoint an appraiser, &c. Article 656 declares that "when the sheriff seizes houses or lands he must take at the same time all the rents, issues, and revenue which this property may yield." Article 657 says, if it be land or a plantation which he has taken, unless the same be leased or rented, it shall remain sequestered in his custody until sale. "Consequently," says the law, "he may appoint a keeper or an overseer to manage it, for whom he shall be responsible." Article 659 declares that when the objects seized consist of money, movables, or beasts, he shall put them in a place of safety, &c. Article 690 declares that the |