The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-05-17
decisions of the Supreme Court.
1RrrnEREp MONDAY, MAY 18th, 1881

rp. Dpeongc. appellee, u.s.. Hgrker-Appeal from
the lh IA sorry note payable the order of Blumm
Hasded failure OF consideration 1t was admitted that
plaintiff held the hoe ,s nee of "a auanV of beer
va satisfied this Court that most OF the beer worth
s oa VI reduction. The District Judge maintained the
demand, and this Court saw no error in that udg
psls,. which affirmed with COSTS
men,. g,s III iaaghter, for the Of etc., u.s. .NcRae
e@amamaa-Appeal from Fourth District CourtSlide
@ a0 avSs sold cotton to p of an inferior quail
&C. ~ hal which the purchaser contracted for The cause
y T cou ta hough hst the Evidence vi fully
a the verdict and went SO far as TO that on review
s 6 o he difference between the price the article he had
a abt 10 suppose he was buying and the article he got
JUDGMENT 2, If reeoveT from defendants The sum Of SIS
d Of $3.50 and the defendants Were ordered to pay the
cot u;ciDaliy Number One u.s. The Rector and Wardens
II csrist Chare-Appeal from Fifth District CouTt-s
M The object OF @ sa IF ye den real ea estate
The District Court against the defendants and they
s sered sy ON %es o bof he 6
w. ~, was il pretended that he was the rector and the
Seo Practice declares that n suits against religions copo
y III office in proper hands This Court therefore thought,
y Jsn thereof that the stood in which no
n was ssned and therefore annuIied the Judgment of
he District Court dismissed the piaintlff petition at his
n both Courts reserving all the right of action that
salalf might nave, II any , 8,
ppser Coarey. IT., Agent Of tie Bank Of England. 4p:
g.a from Judgment OF the Fifth District Court on rule
sea by John NJ. Bach King J. Parkhl pledged mum
M n hses of bank stock to the payment of debt
SSe BY Copeland to plaintiff The debt not having been
ogd Al ID maturity, suit was instituted against the de-
gIsnts in which judgment rendered against Cope
d io e due and the stock pledged ordered to
ae in satisfaction of the decree The Sheriff seized the
,oF and inadvertently advertised it for sale on Good Fri
s The stock was appraised at 100000, and it was not
discovered until tho day Of sale that The adjudication could
tbe sut was incorrectly set forth The plaintiffs attor
% heeupon called the Clerk of the District Court and
he lnI
w. name Of Charles C. Parkh as party defendant Al
bi slage Of proceeding the Sheriff conceived be his
made second seizure of the property advertised it
Tor sae and notified parties to appoint appraisers The
deIendant declined nominating an appraiser and pro-
The property had been already legally appraised. The
sheriff employed his right in such cases, and named an
APPRAISER 10 act for defendant, who valued the at
sJOD while j. NJ, Bach, acting plaintiff appraiser
son was s9g2o AT the sale, the stock adudicated TO
fancy on j. Nj. Bachs account for IS, 325. The defend
ant then TOOK rue On ts painful IAN j. M Bach and
ASIDE ground that the second apprasement ile-
fbs Court thought the District Judge did not err 1t
nnmpodau inquire whether the omission to set forth the
title the suit with absolute accuracy IN the wrt,
en detect owhether the wn could have been arrested e
gay mad INTO the hands of the Sheriff. and had
been partially executed. fbe only party in Court who could
have advantage OF such nOfmaty, the defend
ants they waived their night, # it be one by appointing
APPRAISERS in the first instance And this Court thlnkng
that manifest was done to the defendants by selling
The stock for price much below which it must
lave Brought under the first appraisemen affirmed the
Judgment OF the District Court, with costs.
John Hard d Co., appetlants vs. The Horticultural
BGsfd liiss.sain Nicholson garnishee-Appeal from
is Filth District CouEustis, C. ]. In 1912 plaintiff OBJ
famed Judgment against the defend ant in competent
staeof Mississippi. On the 2st OF January 1876
eAecuIoy process awarded by the late First Judicial
District Court OF louisiana and SAM Nicholson made
asauhee, VINO answered and the Court be-
low gave him Judgment from which plaintiff appealed
The whole matter tarned the OF the ganishee
10 the heterogeneous. After long dissertation upon the
called into notice by the intefrogatores and answers
ls Court affirmed the Judgment OF the District Court
xEng plaintiffs all the nights that they may have in con-
eon with the matters charged in their traverse OF Nchol.
. answers.
Pierre Bcqaet, appellee, VS.. lean PideGu-Appeal
tom The hird District Court, Lafayette-kng, j. The
painful and defendant purchased Jointly, tine night of sell
ling stall in Poydras market. The plaintiff for some
Unknown ieason desisted Tor time from selling at said
stall, aud gave Ills attention to another same market
Plaintiff sued 0F hall the value OF the stall had udg
nent iron winch defendant appealed This Court thought
the plaintiff did not lose his right to his half OF the stall
though he or tune abandoned It, and the defendant had
gl 10 refuse him the thereof any time he thought
proper to return. judgment affirmed with costs.
LraadtdS VS.. LtgaHdtGS.Appeal from the Third Dis.
c Count OF New Orieans-king, j. For the reasons as
gned by the District Judge, judgment OF the District Court
aitTmed,