Facts
On 9 March 1970, E. obtained a sequestration order against H. for a claim of over 38,000 francs, targeting a Commodore car, various furniture and a real estate property. On 10 March 1970, the enforcement officer St. proceeded to seize these assets without appraising them. On 14 April 1970, St. announced the seizure for 17 April 1970 at the debtor's domicile, but no minutes or seizure deed were drawn up for case no. 36. On 28 July, 11 August and 25 August 1970, the creditors in sequestration cases no. 77, 113 and 52 requested continuation of proceedings against H. St. then seized the same assets that had previously been seized at the request of E., without appraising them. On 8 September 1970, the enforcement officer W. proceeded to appraise the seized assets and drew up a seizure deed for cases no. 36, 77, 113 and 52, indicating that case no. 36 constituted a first group and cases no. 77, 113 and 52 a second group.Considerations
The cantonal court considered that the seizures carried out by the enforcement officer St. were null and void, but that the valid seizure had taken place on 8 September 1970. The Federal Tribunal refers the case back to the cantonal court to complete the facts and rule again.
Firstly, the Federal Tribunal considers that the absence of appraisal of the seized assets and the failure to mention a third-party claim or to notify the mortgage creditors and insurers do not result in the nullity of the seizure. These formalities are intended to protect the interests of the creditors and the debtor, but not those of third parties or public interests. Their omission therefore does not render the seizure null and void, but only requires these acts to be carried out subsequently.
Secondly, the validity of the seizure carried out on 17…