The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-02-15
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condensed Decisions-NEw ORLEANS Feb. II, 1874!

Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condensed Decisions-NEw ORLEANS, Feb. u, 1s49
The purchaser of the rights and actions of pupil against
his Tutor acquires greater rights than possessed
by the assignor and the tutor when sued by such
chaser can make the same defence and avail himself Of
the same means as he could if sued by the pupil himself
debts resulting from the tuorshp and advances made
ne IN, pnp; a since m; majority aer the sale OF
raises diigu1ies to the plaintiff right and
protacts the litigation he will not be entitled to the right
given by Art. 2622. G. c..
8. G. w. LEFTwITCH A Us. MOSES Brown, Tutor
Appeal from the Si1 judicial District Court Parish 81
BerciHe. No 1909 in the Supreme Court EusTIs, C
J...Per curtain: 'On the 9th of May, 1s47, Walter
Brown for the consideration of the sum of five hundred and
fifty dollars, acknowledged to have been received by him.
assigned to the plaintiffs all his rights and actions against the
defendant his former tutor The assig pupos that
these rights and actions pending in suit then existing
in the Court of the Sixth District for the Parish of berve.
Under this assignment the plaintiffs instituted their suit
against the defendant for account of his tuorship
Walter Brown and claim judgmen him for the sum
of $1949 with interest," etc.
The defendant, in his answer sets up various charges
against the assgnor Walter Brown his former pupil all OF
which occurred previous to the gnment the plaintiffs
The District Court gave judgment for he of s14i5 g..
with interest from the LIST of March, 1926 and legal mort
gage on the property Of the defendant The defendant has
previous to January lt 1885, the day of the majority Of
Walter Brown.
On the trial of the cause bill of exceptions was taken to
decision Of the Court refusing Give evidence of GER
lain up the defendants answer on The ground
that such matters could not be pleaded compensation
account Of their being unquldaled
against the demand of the plaintiffs. We of OF inon
that the plaintiffs by their purchase have acquired greater
rights against the defendant han the norWaer Brown
had at the time il was made, and that The defendant
make in this suit the deenc and avail himself of the
same MEANS he could if the suit brought by Waller
Brown himself The action of for the tutor
ship and if the defendant has become he creditor OF his
former pupil by any advances him his majority
separation Of The debt eung from the ship from thai
contracted since according to the opn on Of the District
of his right by the plaintiffs which all equally uniqu
AMI to the plaintiffs IL Duranton Dro Freneais 49, 3D.
7Topler Dron Francais. 1872 We think the Coun erred
in refusing to admit the evidence offered stated the bill
But s defendant pleaded that the assignment of his right
and acon by Walter Brown the plaintiffs was the sale
Of tigiogs right and thai he be released by paying
Article IN eendant ns s @ g
to have the benefit of this plea the final judgement to be
larger than the plaintiffs paid the claim ag inst him
The laws per digrsus and ab anastato, C. andati on
founded have other object than the prevention of I'M
necessary litigation which attained great by
the check they impose the cupdty spectators
suits They enable the defendant take the place of the
% IT, 0 w and eT pdnhe he a
and the object OF the law attained But it, the defendant
difficulties to th rgo, of the plaintiff recover his debt
and proac the litigation he evidently defeats the very
which the law has establish in his favor the purpose of
he Of The pon % to Go be to
$685. 597 Merlin Rep, Yerbis Droits Iitigeur It is
reversed and that the be Temandd further proceed
ings, 18th Instructions to the district Judge to receive the
exceptions and that the plaintiffs pay the costs of this ap
pea" w Jones for plaintiffs and appelees H. J. De-
blieux for defendant and appellant
judgement favor of creditor on tableau of distrbu
ton of succession not pescrptble by less than thirty
years. Where it shown that the funds of succession
would have been sufficient to satisfy creditors iadge
sum dne by her to the succession for ey by her pur
chased. the administrator will be personally liable.
ISAAC T. PRESTON. EXECUTOR Us. AUGusTE CHRIS.
ct at-.4ppeal from the Sir judicial District Court
Parish of BercMe-No. 1904 in the Supreme Court -.
SLIDELL, j.. Per curiam The defendants admins.
traitors OF the succession of Bahamonde filed tabeau of
distribution in the 1888 in which after stating the debts
and they exhibited balance of certain sum to be
divided among the heirs Upon this tabeau Layton was
recognized mortgage creditor for $780, with ten per
interest The allowance of interest was opposed and
this opposition having been sustained the tabeau finally
homoogated. thus leaving Layton mortgage cred for
$500 For this amount the present action is brought and
the of the petition for joint judgement against
the defendants, personality and their capacity of
stato for the of $780, with from the date of
moogation. This action was not brought until l843 and
the defendants contend that they protected by the pre-
The homoingaon of the tableau was Judgment in favor
of Layton, which, so far as the succession concerned
not pescnptbe by ss than thirty years. We cannot
s ne the ea
enatives Of the succession and had obtained judicial
IF they
their fault. Their wives bought large portion
chose deliver them the property sold without receiving its
price did at their own risk The defendants claim credit
consider proved is one made by the delivery Of quantity Of
s T The Of have h
this credit comes too late answer to the appeal praying
By e n hat the sP
acknowed that the only in the Judgment of the
supplemental
prayed leave to fe was inconsistent with the first
of Pactice We think the jrry Improperly allowed credit
for $3.50 for VIII oh the defendant contend had
Gudry Davis who received that sum. proved to have
received il in his capaey OF Of Guidys estate
pay did pay to LAYTON hat he ceased hold
as ng ann hsd o ss s da sssI c The
defendants put in default II is Therefore decreed that
the said defendants Auguste Christian and Vaery Duples
the sum Of slGs9 with interest T0p the 18th Angus,
and appellee; z. Labauve for defendants and appellants
tract, his answers cannot be cGntradiced by paro ev
dence; nor parO evidence admissible to sucha
contract in an action of damages for breach of it.
NORBERT MARIoNNEAUx Us. VIM E. EDWARDS. -.4p
peal from the Sin'h judicial District Court Parish Of
IberULe. No. 1908 in the Supreme Court, .RosT H..
Per curiam This suit brought TO damages
the aedged breach of contract to transfer real estate
The petition forth that on the 18th July 1S45 tract of
land of arpents front by forty IN DEPTH lying In the rear
of the plantations of the plaintiff and defendant sold al
probate SALE and that the defendant had agreed with the
plrntif to purchase the land his name and when
the plaintiff ready amt willing, the defendant to
transfer and sell to him the land lying the of his pan
alton at the price at which the whole tract
should be purcha that the defendant did huy the land
when called upon ply with his contract refused
to do in consequence OF VIII oh refusal the plaintiff al
lodges he has sustained the damages claimed
The defendant denied all the aeg of the petition
and pleaded the prescription of year. bar of the
ton There judgment of nonsut and the plaintiff
appealed. The contract aedged in the petition, not having
bt reduced whiting, the plaintiff nterroe ated the de-
PENDANT oath in relation to it. under 2255 c. c. The
of the defendant though perhaps not in all respects
negative the contract aedged and the Plaintiff
offered witnesses to dspove them and substanate his
aega This testimony having been objected ard
jeced the plant if took bill of excepons. We of
opin ion the District Judge did When patty inter
rogaed upon facts and articles in relation to We bal
transfer real estate, denies the Contract his
cannot be conradcted bv pao evidence paroI evil
dence admissible such contract in action of
damages for breach of it., Bach rs. Hall. l.. R. l16
Bauduc Coney, 10 Rob R. 466; Breed Us. Quay. 10
plaintiff having failed to make his case is unnecessary