Baton-Rouge gazette. [volume] (Baton-Rouge, La.) 1819-1856, 1845-09-27

saqusntiy approved and confirmed II by re-
eetyibg voluntarily the money after 'hs VIZ.
leneo oofnpIsined Of had 20 issj We b.
llgvo The true doctrine on this subject n bs
that The acts Of the party from which A ratio.
cation Ia sought 10 be- dsducod, amoat pyincn
clearly and sguivocaIly bis intention 10 raj
fy # his acts can bg in any manner account.
cd Tor. Without n ratification u Tho contract
pocessarlIy resnlltDg from them, they shOv 10
approval ~ confirmation on his part. s foul.
itcr, page 70j, No. H06-GO7 sturv's Eau.
" JuflspruJsBco, sec. 8O7 ~ LIS Rep liz
From the terms If article 1910 If the Louis.
lana Code il would Seem that our law in =
cage like the present, recognizes NJ iacil sp-
prevail 0ycnpt that Nhlch results from tho
fact of suf,riug the time 10 elaBse within
which the Teseiseory action can be eEsreiRoF,
such appears also 10 be the doctrine RI Pc
tltior TFatN dies obliRattons, p7Rc 10, No ~.
But bg this ~ II may. and applying 10 thta
case the ordinary rules of tacit ratification. No
cannot ges IN all tho acts OF plainirR taken
together. any intention 10 confirm The sale
c1forisd from him. Il il true. that On his A..
rival ut Nafchez he received o hundred do
lars from The drawese Of the draft ; tina, LrH
nerePsItiea might have compelled him 10 ask
Of thcm, driven ~ he was from his home and
reduced 10 y state Of destttntion. Az 10 tho
balance Of The sum he afterwards received, Il
might well be, 40 no AYERS, that having re-
ceiVed IN payment n draft payable ten days
afer sight, he believed It his duty 10 use do
diligence 10 collect il, lest he should fail In
tho present suit he might loose both biz prn.
perry ard tho paltry sum given for u : But
shortIy after thlg, 40 find The plaintiff dpppt.
ting the money IN The hands of q btokgr IN
Na'cb6z. and advising the. defendant Of tho
deposit and Ut his intention 10 bring the pre-.
ssnt action. This course Of conduc. does not
10 our mind, sho% any intention Of conRrm,ng
the aaIc.
The JCsT i~SpIgsATtoN NJ The Jury who 'yt.
cd tits Cause betrayed them INTO errors which
II is our duty to correct. After allowing
SSl4O FIR the fruits and revenues arising
from the plantation, 'hey gave SGO0O for fny.
Their damage.
Tho petition does not purport 10 claim
either ihe fruits and revenues Of tho land.
or any damages for The personal wrongs gus.
timed BY he plaintiff After setting forth tho
threats and acts Of violence used IL compel
plaintiff to surrender his interests Ia
'he partnerships the petition AYERS
that this interest, With Ons~hsIf Of the crop
Of thai year we're at that ttns worth 100000
and Ihai before bringing the present action,
plaintiff bad demanded Of dglegdenl either
he resltufoD II all bic rights "a partner. er
The payment " 100000 10 len thereof
tins showing clearly that the damages Of
O.DC mentioned III The prayer Of Il weFeu-
tented TOR The wrong and injury done 10 plain
tJf by depriVtug him Of bis interest II, tbs
p"ttncfahtp, and The hole evidence goes ~
show he Valio Of the slaves, of ths land.
and Of The improvements , but this sunt the
plaintiff could not demand together with The
restitution Of the properly itself lie his
Iohl none VI Ma rights IS a partner under the
act d Tho 9Th ofAufil 1885 and can cali
upon defendants 10 account for the lruiIa and
revenues Of the land, nd tor 4 setletnapt
81 the partnership but be cannot claim A. a
partner any spec fc sum, because a IiauJda-
.tau Of ~" e"as9rr sau Alone show Tie prof
lis 10 be divided, II any there be-. Mead "a,
Curry, Mario, n. s. 1aI, Az to tho
personal wrongs suffered BY The plaintiff. u
does not appear from The peadjnR4 Or cyi.
dencG that he intended IL sock redress for
them IN the present action ; and The record
shows that shortly after the inception Il
this suit. criminal proserutt0ns we're insliu-
tie aganDl MCKEE, 3 lss a ID HAEaAsoR, for
assault aod battery and faIse imprisonment
Fhis vie" Of he case makes i unnecessary
10 Examine whether vlgdtctlve damages car
~ ought to oe awarded against he hers Of
me wrDUg-dper.
II therefore ordered, adjudged and de.
creed, that the judgment # tho District
Court BE- affirmed, except that part Of IL do.
creeIng dote niants to pay g5I4O for rrurs
and $4,000 tpr damages, winch !s hereby re.
Dsrsed he plaintiff and appellee paying tho
cosl Of his appeal.