The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-05-10
Decisions of the Supreme Court.


--e>e-
Decisions Of the Supreme Court.
s(RENDERED MONDAY. MAY sth 1881
Richard C.. Stockton, appellee VS.. J. N. Craddick,
I. r. Hyde and J. p. ClaPp, appellants. Appeal
from the Fourth District Court. Eustis, C. j., de-
livered the opinion
This suit was Instituted in June, 1s41, and was
commenced by attachment against lots in New Or
leans, property of the defendant. Judgment was
rendered for plaintiff, with privilege on the pro-
perty attached in February, 1872 Execution hav-
ing been issued on this Judgment and the lots hav-
enjoined by r. r. Hyde and J. P. Capp, who claimed
their property by purchaseat Sherif''s sale. On
a hearing in the Court below, the injunction was
dismissed, and Hyde and Clapp appealed. A sup
Elemental petition filed by appellants, shows that
the plaintiff is an Attorney at Law, practising at
the time he bought the claims on which he obtained
Judgment against Craddck. That the right he pur-
chased was litigious and therefore the sale to him
was absolutely null. The property seized was
transferred by Hall, to Craddick, in July, 1910.
Appellants judgment creditors of Hall and after
plaintiffs attachment, they instituted a revocatory
action for the purpose of subectng the property to
their execution, on the ground of fraud between
Hall and Craddick, and i: was so decreed.
feri facids was issued, and the lots We're sold
under it, and the opponents became purchasers
This Judgment was reversed. on matter of form,
but subsequent Judgment was rendered by which
simulated. The only question was as to the lia-s
blity of theots to be attached by the creditors of
Craddick while the fraudulent title was existing.
This Court thought there was no evidence charg-
ing the plaintiff with the fra"d, therefore the matter
was reduced TO a question of law. The District
Judge gave Judgment for plaintiff, when this ap-
peal was TAKEN This Court thought the Court
below did not err. Judgment affirmed. =
Good1ue & Co. VS.. John and Samuel McClarty-
He,cin, Heran & Co., Grnishees: Appeal from
Fourth District Court. .Slide, j. gave the opin-
ion of the Court.
This suit was commenced by attachment, on the
part of plaintiffs, in the hands Of Hewitt, Heran e.
Co., who were consgnees of tobacco shipped to
them by defendant, to be reshpped to Liverpool for
sale. Hewitt, Heran q Co. claimed the right to
applythe funds to demand of their own against
the defendant, by privilege. They succeeded in
the Lower Court, but this Court reversed that
judgment, and ordered the sum of 1924 81, which
was deposited in Court, to be delivered to plaintiff,
after deducting. costs of suit against defendant;
and that the costs of the rule taken on the gar
nishees, and of this appeal, be borne by said gar
nishees.
Ed,oard Carrigan, Appellee, VS.. Clement De Neuf
6aurg. Appeal from Fifth District Court -. Eustis,
C.. j., delivered opinion.
These parties owners of adjoining lots. Plain
tiff built on his lot, leaving passage between the
division line and his house. The defendant built
the wall of house that he was erecting on the
line, and took u inches of plaintiff, land. The
suit was for the removal of the wall and damages.
In the Court below, the plaintiff had Judgment and
the defendant appealed This Court thought that
the article of law that gives the right to the owner
who first builds place, not surrounded by walls
to rest half of his wall on his neighbors land pro-
vided he builds properly, creates urban servi-s
tude. The article referred to GID exists in the
Code of 1909 and most buildings in the city rest on
party walls The witnesses based their estimates
of damages on the simple right or wrong in the &C.
cupancy of plaintiffs land by defendants wall.
This Court considered defendants rig hit SO to build
to exist; therefore, no evidence of damages was
before this Court Judgment reversed ard given
in favor of defendant, with costs in both Courts.
Robert Murphy VS.. Thomas Diamond.-Appeal
from Second District Court. .Eustis, CHI j.. de-
livered the opinion. Plaintiff sued to recover dam
ages sustained by the steamer South Western
coming in collision with plaintiff ferry boat ply
ing from NewOrleans to Algiers. The lower Court
gave plaintiff damages to the amount of $1,000 and
defendant appealed Both parties demand the re-
uersal Of the judgement This Court saw no reason
to doubt the correctness OF the rule laid down by
them in a former case, where they decided that in
collision suits where both parties in fault nei-
Their should recover. In this case, from the EVIL
dence, this Court thought both parties guilty of
negligence other fault, and reversed the judge
ment of the District Court and rendered one in favor
OF the defendant, with costs.
VIM. G. Johnson VS.. ForestaU, High 4 Co. APP
the opinion of the Court
The action was on two Bills of Exchange, to
which demand the plea of prescription was oppo-
sed. The lower Court sustained the plea in bar,
and final Judgment was rendered against plaintiff.
Subsequently, plaintiff brought new suit against
defendant, for balance due on an account current,
which said balance resulted from the non-pa yment
of the aforesaid Bills of Exchange. To this suit
the plea of judicatd was urged and sustained by
the district Judge, who pronounced for the defend
ant, and this Court thought the district judge was
right. Judgment therefore affirmed, with costs.
In the suits of Sylas Hardy VS.. J. W. Zacharie;
Cyrus Yale VS.. j. p. Noian-embracing no impor-
tant matter whatever-the iudgments'of the Dis
trict Courts We're affirmed, with costs.
Lucien CODY. i. M C., Appelle, VS.. Charles Koch
etal.-In this case, for the given by the
Judge of the Third District Court the judgment was
affirmed with costs.
State of Louisiana VS.. Atchafalaya Railroad and
Banking Company e ai-The liquidation of the
Atchafalaya Bank, filed in tableau, to which an
opposition was made by two of the creditors which
opposition was sustained by the Judge of the Dis
trict Court From this the liquidation appealed
One of the grounds which reversal of judg-
ent is asked is the rejection of certain charges in
the shape of fees paid to counsel, amounting to
$50. The of the reflections have not been
given by the District Court but as the liquidation
has not shown the necessity of the expenditure the
judgment cannot be reversed on this ISSUE For this
and other reasons of the same nature the Judgment
nea lad from lie affirmed with aoote