The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-05-23
Supreme Court Of Louisiana.
Condensed Decisions-NEw ORLEANS, May 81 1849.

suit TO annul Judgment confessed by such insOvent
in fraud of creditors. after his insolvency. be nsti-
tued by the syndic of the creditors of such nsovent
creditor is not competent to maintain such action
in his name.
BANK OF KENTUCKY as. SARAH CONNER, EFT
AL: Appeal from The FjM District Court of New
Orleans. .EUsTIs, c. J. On the 9th MAY, 1916,
Judgment was rendered in the Fifth District
| Court of New Orleans, in the case of Sarah Con-
ner, f. w. c., Theophilus Freeman, by which it
was decreed that the plaintiff was entitled to her
freedom, and that the defendant emancipate her,
according to the formalities required by law. The
President, Directors and Company of the Bank of
Kentucky, alleging themselves to be creditors of
freeman, by virtue of judgment obtained by
them in said Court against him. instituted this action
ON the 9Th November, 1916, aesnst Sarah Conner
| and Freeman, for the purpose Of annulling said
judgment, obtained by Sarah Conner for her free
dom, and of subjecting her. the property Of Free
man, to execution under their Judgment. They
obtained judgment by default, which, on evidence
taken, was confirmed. 1t annulled the aforesaid
judgment of May 6, 1896 and subjected Sarah
Conner as the slave of freeman, to their execu-
ton. After an unsuccessful motion for new trial,
Sarah Conner appealed. There was no evidence
that Freeman had taken any steps to emancipaie
Sarah Conner, and the Supreme Court expressed
no opinion as to her condition status. The only
question as to the validity of the Judgment
appealed from between the parties, and the plain
tiff s right OF action. Alter quoting articles 1870
and 1865 &. c., the Court said that appeared that
in January 1914, Freeman became insolvent, and
subsequently ceded his property to his creditors in
the late First Judicial District Court and that there
fore the syndc of the creditors of Freeman is the
party competent to institute action of this kind.
BY the insoIvent acts of 1903 and 1877 judgments
confessed by debtors in fraud of creditors may be
declared null and void at their instance. The
action by the individual creditors, in this instance,
was held nntenable. Judgment reversed aud plain
tifls' petition dismissed with costs.
Where the congnees of goods gave an order for the same
TO their drayman who presented and delivered it to the
dschargng clerk of the vessel and the drayman picked
out the goods in the of the clerk and them
aside, and there request by the dayman to the
clerk, any undertaking by the latter to watch the
goods, and while the drayman going for his dray.
which distance off of the boxes taken
by person unknown held, that this delivery of
the goods on the part of the vessel. ...
GARTHwAITE, PAyAN x Co., Us. SHIr LOUISA
AND OWNERS. Appeal from The Fourth District
Court Of New Orleans. .SLIDELL, j.. Action
for the value of trunk of goods consigned to
plaintiffs per ship Louisa There was judgment
below against plaintiffs, and they appealed. The
only question presented by them is whether de-
PENDANTS have proved a delivery of the goods.
Plaintiffs gave their negro drayman written
order for their goods, which he presented and de-
livered to the discharging clerk of the ship. The
drayman picked out the packages in the presence
of the clerk and put them aside. He then said to
the clerk that he was going for his draw, which
was at a short distance Off While the clerk was
engaged in the performance of his duties, and the
drayman bringing his dray, of the boxes
disappeared from the levee, and the taker was
never discovered. There was no request by the
drayman to The clerk, nor any undertaking by the
latter, to watch the goods while the drayman
was away.
Per curiam: "Under the evidence we consider
the goods as having been delivered and receipted
for by the delivery of the order. The duty of the
carrier then al end, especially there was
consent, nor even request, to watch The goods
any longer. Plaintiffs cannot make the ship re-
sponsibe for the negligence or stupidity of their
own servant.
1t is said that the testimony of the dischargng
clerk does not show expressly that the packages |
picked out by the negro, under the superintendent
of the clerk conceded with the description in the
bill of lading, and that the missing trunk, which |
had, usual, mark and number, was one of |
them. The evidence is that five boxes and trunk |
were picked out in the clerks presence by the |
drayman, and that lie took them and put them |
aside; and it does not appear that any other por- |
ton of the cargo was missing. 1t would be nnrea-
sonable, under such circumstances, TO question the
identity. Judgment affirmed with costs"
CLAUDE REBARD u.s. JAMES EVANS. Appeal
from the Fourth District Court of NeW Orleans. =.
RosT, J. Judgment amended by allowing de- |
PENDANT S2l6 AZ, reconvention, against plaintiff
with interest and the costs of the District Court,
defendant TO pay the costs of the appeal.
Where levee has been constructed under adjudication. by
the parOehial authorities. in front of the land of alb
residing in another parish and no notice is given
to the ab,entse required by the act Of 1929 in
ton Qudntum mtruit from the absent |
proprietor, the amount Of the adjudication cannot be
taken the value of the work done, the adjudication
Illegal for of notice and binding the alb
sentee in any manner.
POLICE jury OF EAST Baron ROUGE Us. JOHN |
McDoNoGH... ;Aw3at from the Eth District
'. e I ,nal kvrl
defendant from judgment against him for the cost
of Ievee made in front of his land in East Baion
Rouge. The inspector of roads and levees of plain
tiffs had previously adudicated the making Of the
levee to +. ID. Newcomb for $3.50. The levee was
made and accepted by plaintiffs, and Newcomb
having ascertained that the inspector had failed TO
notify the absent proprietor (McDonOgh) in the
manner required by the act of 1929, claimed the |
amount of the adjudication from the Police Jury,
and obtained against them judgment, which was
affirmed on appeal, and has since been satisfied.
4 Rob. r. 1888 The present action has been insti-
tuted on the intimatlon of the Supreme Court in
that case, that the absent proprietor was liable
upon a gudntum niernH to the amount he had been
benefited by the work done.
The defence was general denial that the work
was of no advantage to defendant, and The pre-
scription of one and three years. The Court held
that the only questions at issue Were the value OF
the work and the extent to which defendant has
been benefited by it. The only evidence adduced
by paiatiffs was that of the witness Carl, who tes
ifies that the value of the work the amount of
he adjudication to Newcomb he, says the wit
SIS, being the lowest bidder, although other men,
&C. % We're good judges of the value of the work,
- e present at the adjudication and bidding
oi witness does not know the quantity of work
er and takes the adjudication the measure of
lg 70 The adjudication having been held, in the
IT. TO case, to be Illegal for want of proper notice
ISonogh, and no notice required by the act of
thatng shown in this case, it was adjudged
ton )Onogh canno, be bonnd by the adjudica-
Is. not nv manner. Per curiam Plaintiffs have
ID, plantput their case. But as they are only
u. the rename, the taxpayers of the Parish being
X crs,omaties in interest, we will, as has been
all tho c,ndth this Court in such cases, remand
Vi IF il wfnrher proceedings This disposition
prescriptide plaintiffs to conrovert the pleas of
g. and case n on the appeal. Judgment reversed
he costs of applied, plaintiffs and appellees to pay
40 Where party -
oo the bonds 6tained Judgment. releasing her from
he marty called y, suit against her master. the
r. an appeal ohanty by the master cannot maintain
grounds of ffion TO annul such judgment ON the