The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-05-31
Decisions of the supreme Court.
lRENpEREn MosnAy- MAY % 1913 \

}. This suit was commenced for the purpose OF
| setting aside the adjudication of certain property
made by the Sheriff. which property plaintiff alleges
| belonged TO her, and which was Illegally seized TO
| to satisfy judgment rendered against Mrs Ber-
tnard Hart She also claimed damages for the al.
| legged wrongful acts of the Sheriff. and obtained an
injunction restraining Romer, the purchaser, and
the Sheriff from dispossessing her The lSistrict
| Judge dissolved the injunction and gave Romer
| 800 special damages-that Judgment this Court
| affirmed. Upon reconsideration of the testimony
| this Court still thought that the validity of the
Sheriff sale was properly maintained bat thought
that the District Judge erred in giving special dam
| ages to Romer. This Court has frequently held
that the of 1881, which provides for assessing
| damage dissolving injuctions applies only to
cases in which judgments are enoined in other
cases. where the party is aggrieved he is left to his
recourse on the bond-17 L. r. page 1919 l.. R.
4o2-2 H. r. lSo The error now spoken Of
capped the attention of this Court on the former trial
| of the case. This Court therefore ordered that so
much of the judgment appealed from as amends
500, special damages, be reversed without preu-
dice to Romers right of action on the Injunction
bond. In other respects the judgment was affirmed
with costs.
The New Orleans Canal Bank subrogated to the
rights OF PoUeH, appellant, Thomas Po,seH vs. John
Keller, 0ppetlees-Appeal from the Fourth District
Court-Eustls c. This suit was instituted in 1910
to recover Sl9,l35 30, the balance of an account
which had been running between them since 1886
The case before this Court on appeal in 1874.
and is reported in the 9Th r. r. page Al. where
the causes OF action are set forth distinctly. The
action is based on a settlement of accounts in April
1889. The defendant charges this settlement TO
haze been signed by him in error that the ac-
counts on which it was made We're fraudulent that
so far from his being indebted to plaintiff in the
alleged, the plaintiff his debtor to the amount
Of $4,000 In 1884, after trial on the various is
Sues the jury gave plaintiff verdict for S139lO go
and in the appeal then taken the verdict was set
10 th.lr nIaI fnra 81 10,
keen examination of the case in December 1876
the District Jud &c before whom the cause was tried
fixed the balance due by the defendant at $50 90
The evidence Showed that Powell was de-
aulter in capacity of receiver in the settlement of
the partnership affairs OF Keller d Williams and
also in his executorship of the estate of Sarah
Baum, and that Keller had interest in that sue
cessicn. The Judge would not give the Judgment
in favor of the plaintiff Powell, unless the u.ig-
mens against him as a defaulting receiver and ex-
ecutor should be first satisfied, and in order to ena-
bic the party interest to comply with this require
ment, time was allowed, and at its expiration the
aforesaid judgments not having been satisfied the
plaintiff was suited; and from that decision this
present appeal was taken. This Court was of
opinion that the appeal to this Court by the defend
ant for relief against error and fraud would have
been strengthened by disposition on his part to
extend to his former friend and COMPLIANT, the JUS
tice he himself invoked. This Court thought that
the means of correcting and relieving party
from the consequences of fraud are by the appiica
ton of truth, and from this standard which neither
of the parties acknowledge the defendant Keller
invariably recoiled whenever his interests were to
be adversely Affected by it. After careful exam-
nation of all the evidence and circumstances al
tending this remarkable suit, this Court proceeded
to reverse the Judgment of the District Court, and
ordered that the Canal Bank, by virtue of their
subrogaon to Powell's rights against Keller should
have Judgment against the defendant Keller for
six thousand three hundred and twelve dollars and
lightweight cents, with interest and costs.
BENJAMIN Sutton, jr. VS.. JOHN Kinds, etal., appel
Mnt.-Appeal from the Third District Court, Par
ish of Jefferson.-king j.. The suit was brought
open account, and plaintiff sought to make
them liable in solido as commercial partners-they
being cattle dealers, buying and selling for profit
The District Judge from the evidence, that two of
the defendants we're partners as alledged, gave
Judgment against them in soido for the amount
claimed from which they appealed. This Court
fully agreed with the District Judge, that the debt
sued for was fully established, but could not find in
the record sufficient evidence to conclude that
partnership existed. The Judgment of the District
Court was therefore reversed far it related to
Hensel, one of the defendants and affirmed in other
respects, the plaintiff paying one half the costs of
this appeal, and the defendant Kinds paying the
other half.
Joseph Menara, appellant. VS. L. NJ DAVIDSON, Ell,
ais, S. d. Mcneil, dppellee.-Appeal from the 9TH
District Court-Eustis, j.. :. Davidson was cashier
Rouge, and Mcneil was his surety. Davidson was
charged with approprIating some money to his own
use and Mcneil sought to be made Liable there
for The Bank made an assignment of its rights to .
Menard. Judgment was rendered in favor of Nc
Neil, and plaintiff appealed. BY a resolution of
directors in lS4l, Davidson the Cashier, was auth
orzed to draw his salary for four months in advance
on paying interest In April, 1912, he was author
lied to draw his salary six months in advance.
The deficit arises from the fact of the Cashier hav
resolutions, and again by monthly instaments
Mcneil contended that he was not liable, because
the deficit was the sum loaned by the bank. under
the above named resolutions-that the advance of
the salary to the Cashier violation of the
conditions of his suretyshp and that he was thereby
discharged.
This Court did not think Mcneil was discharged
by the resolutions of the bank directors, and there
fore reversed the judgment of the District Court,
and gave judgment against Mcneil, with interest
and costs.
Girod's Executors, appezlees, VS.. J. B. Deiour
and Adelaide Broun, appehants-Appeal from the
First District Court. -Rost, J.-Deioux purchasedpn
a three wears. credit, house and lot from Girod's
succession. The executors of Girod instituted suit
against him and his endorser to the amount.
During the tendency of this suit, Dejoux made a
Seven years lease ofhe property to Adelaide Brown,
his brothers concubne, for an annual rent, proved
to be less than one-fourh of the real value of the
tenement The executors obtained judgment, and
caused the property to be sold under their mort
gage, and the purchaser refused to take the pro-
perty, on account of the lease, which was not made
known at the time of sale. The executors then
sued to avoid the lease, the ground that it was
made to defraud the succession of Girod. Subse-
quently the purchaser took rule on the Executors
to show cause why the adjudication should not be
set aside, on the ground that the Sheriff could not
give him title, and the absolute possession OF the
property, by reason of the aforesaid lease. This
rule was made absolute. Dejoux answered plain
tiffs' petition setting up exceptions, and denied
plaintiffs right to sue The other defendant, Miss
alleged against her, and prayed for relief The case
was tried by jury, who found for the plaintiffs, and
the defendants took this appeal. This Court
thought that Justice had been done to the parties
and therefore affirmed the judgment, with costs.
J. H. Hatch. ct. al. VS.. FJ. A1nauh, ct. al appel
lant-- Eustis, .-Ths isan appeal from Judgment
by which it was deereed that the Metaire road of
right belonged to the public far as the river Mis-
sssipp at place called Cannes Brushes, as it for
dirnctinU all distinctions the |