Case ID: mann-unrep-cas_1/html/0065-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marr, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 6153.
    Catherine Jones vs. Joseph Henry.
    When a suit is brouglitby a married woman, the proper mode of shewing the husband’s authorization is to make him co-plaintiff.
    Signing the appeal bond by the husband, as agent of his wife, by making his mark, might not of itself alone suffice as his authorization, but his active agency in the suit from its inception shew that it was prosecuted with his approbation and assistance, and constitute authorization.
    The clerk of the lower court receives the appeal bond, and he would be derelict in duty if he should receive it without knowledge of the genuineness of the signatures thereto.
    Every proprietor has aright to make an inclosure around his lands, and the right to build his fence upon his own land, and this implies the right to remove it at his pleasure.
    Appeal from the District Court for Natchitoches. Tucker, J. ad hoc.
    
    
      Morse & Dranguet, and Chaplin for Plaintiff Appellant. Cunningham for Defendant.
    
      The suit is for the recovery of five thousand dollars as damages for the forcible and violent removal of a fence used in common by the plaintiff and defendant, who are adjoining proprietors. Judgment was rendered below for the defendant, which was reversed on appeal by the preceding court just before going out. A rehearing was granted and the former decree was set aside, and the judgment below affirmed.
   Marr, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, which deals mainly with facts, and the conflicting testimony upon them.