The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-12-13
Decisions of tho Supreme oourt.


| Court that the judgement remain nndistuTbed.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and deceed that the
remain undisturbed.
The STATE OF LOUISIANA rs. THE SECOND JUSTICE
OF THE PEACE THE PARISH OF ORLEANS, in the mat
ter of James Trave praying for writ of mandsmus Sill
dell This Court having jurisdiction to the constitu
dOnay or legality only Of fines imposed by municipal cor
pod to Be or could BE- examined npon appeal IN his case
(see Municipality No Three Blame 1st Annual 35 il
with costs to be paid by the applicant
The STATE LOUISIANA u.s. THE SECOND JUSTICE
OF THE PARISH OF ORLEANS, in the matter of james
Crow, praying for writ of mandamus Sidel j. .SamG
judgement in preceding case
KILGORE TAYLOR & Co., appts., Us. Planters BANK
OF MISSISSIPPI R. N. & A. n OGDEN garnishees appees
Eustis H.. This appeal was taken by the plaintiffs from
order Of the ptset Judge dcharsng rule taken by
agant gamishees for the delivery Of certain notes to the
Sheriff to be subjected to The plaintiffs execution Thepan
in another State under the articles 746 and 74 of the Code
aud the Judge considered the effect OF the repeal OF these
articles by the Of June 1896 upon the process which the
plaintiffs endeavored to after the repeal of these
in subsequent proceedings The Judge did make his
decision on this point We have since had the subject before
act no further proceedings authorized in execution of
BsgE az AIsbsms Annual r. the Indictment appeaed
/ from is efore affirmed, with costs.
J. b. FAssET q Co. appees. BARK LEDA,. CAPTAIN
AND OWNERS, appts.. Shdel J. The plaintiffs claim the
value of silk shipped in the defendants
vessel which was delivered to the consgnees The bill
of adng for Thirty three bales and twelve domes
tics All the packages duly delivered TO the cOnsignee
except 1t in evidence end the fact is not contest
ed that the delivered instead of containing domes
tics contained silk handkerchief he argument advanced
by defendants counsel is whether they can be held liable
for the value goods not eng the description contained
the 6 OF aa3g hs Get Of t1e % ae was 70
tain number of packages OF and the agreement
failed To- do this he must answer for the value Of the missing
package The rights of the parties should in this respect be
that the missing contained articles Of much less value
than those den0minated domestcs it clear that having
mil he
to offer such proof and on establishing the fact could not
where etton is made of goods enormously described in
bill Of lading as OF Pary description, and in reality of
should be assessed according to the true character Of
Captain to select them for the eson In the present
however there nothing to induce the belief that the ship
e s conduct was aeea by he deopO1 Whe he
msdecnptiOn has njurOusy affected the nights Of Othes
party who had made il even inuocenty Commenaire
Became IiV. Ill Tit H. Sec IT, BeIvin Court Institutes
de dro Commercial, vol II, p Us Gouget et morglt'
vleneuve Massee Die du ConentuiTe Commercial
Dos COnnassement. Abbot Shipping, Gam. Ed. 1850
AETONIA SEeURA M. VIATOR admx., appt as. STEAM
BOAT AID, CAPTAIN AND OWNERS, appees.-J Slidel...
The claim ofhe plaintiff for the value of ten bales Of cot
ton. The plaintiff "a planter shipped twentyOne bales to
Darby & TTemouet his factoH, by steamer Aid eleven
bales of which to hand The defendants pleaded
the general denia-aO that the ten bales delivered on
the Levee that due notice thereof was given and if the
cotton thereafter was lost stolen the defendants were not
the consgnee andhe responsibilities continue until there
Is an aetna eenea & 80 b 6s pnpg ne goods on the
wharf discharges the vessel where there has been notice TO
the oonsgnees Of the time and place Of the delivery it
seems to Us that this rue to be applied with such gor
against the consgnee as to put the goods unq1a dig at
made repeated calls for them during the day and the dis
charge not made until advanced hour OF the day. We
do not with what popey under the circumstances
stated, the Captain and owners OF the steamer could De re
Ieves At so late an hour Of the day. promisc1ousy and
without vigilance exercised over T. or over the dIay
T %sR Th0 TOOK away judgement o. n' lower 00o''
sAM'L L. FoReAY, appt rs. JULIEN. HANELN. appellee.
King. L. The plaintiff issued this suit on open account
for services rendered. the amount Of which interest was
charged for several years per cent and proved by oral
testimony The Code express that stipulation 10 pay IN
only be established by evidence in writing q u
Art. 1886, La. R. los. Judgement OF the lower Court
affirmed.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF NArcHEz appt u.s. WIN F.
MARKHAM, ]. C. FORD, gamiihee and appellee. The
plaintiff appealed from decree quashng certain pro-
ceedings punishment which had by virtue of
order rendering certain inducements obtained in the sae Of
Practice.
In the case of Scott 1s Duke Sd Annual held that
the law authorizing executOr in judgement obtained
in another State of the Union, or in foreign country,
repealed by the act of 1886 The deed
matter of remedy and, such within the control Of the
i had been con'ended in argument, that though the Lee
Ei6 and 7 Of the Code Of Praetce by the law Of 1916 yet
the bar Itself does not meet the Iequst on Of e Sth at
article provides that no aw shall be revived or amended by
Z
section amended shall be renaced and published at length
We cannot declare that act repeating certain defined
this article By terms il does include the repeal Of
laws portions Of them and only be thus ended by
an implication of doubtful prOpriety.
This MOI a case in which Court permitted to exercise
the of declaring act of the Legislature to be uncOA
Judgement affirmed, with costs
WALLIS p COLEMAN, appt, as. ID. j. devils, Shenh OF
Jefferson appee Rost - The plaintiff aedges that he
is the owner of judgement against LauHentne Miller.
That under said judgement execution issued directed to
the defendant Sheriff. that the defendant seized property
sufficient to satisfy the Judgement but subsequently released
the greater part of it, without legal opposition having
been made to the seizure The defendant that all his
acts were legal and acQueced in by the plaintiffs that said
plaintiff received from him the proceeds Of the property
potion Of he property seized belonged to another person
required before selling an Indemnlying bond which the
fully sustained The property not claimed was sold BY
him. and the plaintiff having received the proceeds Of 1t
without objection or reservation OF any Kind mus be hea 70
have ratified the sale, and cannot now complain oil H.
Judgement affirmed with costs.
HAYS AND ROBBINS appts., Us. PATRICK NooEAN
appee Slde j. Case not made out BY the plaintiffs and
was dismissed by the before The judgement Of the
lower court is affirmed.
VgIpow MANS JAcoBs, Us D. AUGUSTINE, Sheriff. et |
al 7 A. ROMER JR appee., on Rule. PAUL MARTIN, |
appt on Rule This appeal taken by Paul Martin from
an order of the District Court directing writ of possession
to issue commanding the Sheriff to put j. A. Romer JT IN
possession of certain lots purchased by him at sheriff sale
The plaintiff had instituted suit for the purpose OF setting
aside the adjudication ROme and obtaped injunction
restraining the Sheriff ION putting Rouer in possession A
judgement rendered in favor Of defendant and the IN
junction was dissolved with damages This judgement
affirmed in the appeal But the purchaser Romef before
taking his writ of possession took rule upon the appellant
who aledged unlawfny TO deain te property, to show
cause why the writ should not ISSUE No was made
TO the rule and made absolute We no objection
in the record of this suit TO the issuing Of he writ under the
Tented 70 be adversely to the rights Of Paul Martini the ap
pelant he has his tdy ordinary cases 1.-THE order
directing the writ cannot be reversed IN ths appeal Inc
jud cement appealed from is affirmed.
WIN. H. GREEN, appee., NJ. J. garcia, appt |
Rost H. This is an action Of damages against Sheriff
for refusing restore the plaintiff property which had
been attached after TIE dissolution Of the attachment IN
consequence Of which refusal alleged the
lost The answer denies the allegations of the petition ave1s
that the property unsOund when levied upon ETC., ETC
This case was tried three times the Tst instance On the
t trial the plaintiff obtained verdict for $500 On the
ond The ;prv did not agree and on the third the plaintiff
ohtaine5 verdict and judgement for sl8 with interest