The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-02-22
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condensed Decisions-NEw ORLEANS, Feb. /

condensed Decisions-NEw ORLEANS, Feb 10, 1919
When after the sale of slave possession taken by the
endee at penod subsequent to the purchase and before
Nor continued possession by the vendor will not be re-
gaTded at most as more than suspicious Circumstance
Of the parties When such sale is fair and real the
,s o. oe save by tfe vendee to the vendor and the
honze the vendors creditors to seize and sell the slave
EDWARD Brown Us. WIN. GLATHRY 8ppeA from
the Tenth judicial District Court. Parish of Carroll
No l2o6 in the Supreme Court .SLIDELL. j.. Per curl
| am In 1888 William Craig married. in Kentucky, Eiza
Brown the sister of the plaintiff and became according
the law of that State, the of slave called Fanny
then belonging 10 his wife In 1912 Craig sold the slave and
her child Ellen to the plaintiff by written bill of sale
knowedging the receipt of the price, $3.50 The execution
OF this instrument and the payment of the money the
| time, are proved by the subscribing witnesses.
In the latter of 1876 Brown hired Craig Fanny and
her two children born after the purchase Craig then
going to louisiana to do cert4n work carpenter and
took the slave Fanny with him cook being understood
that he should bring her back his The other child
| Ellen, remained with the plaintiff.
Craig his arrival in Louisiana in 1847 held himself
out as me owner OF Fanny and her children He fell in debt
the Of isa7 hired the slaves to GIathry The LOUIS
ana creditors brought suit against him by attachment
sezea Ge slaves They were also seized on er acaas and
There no doubt under the evidence of the execution Of
me Dill OF sale and the payment of the money; but the diff
e% ayg ae yan Sm the fact Of the GO % possession of
tpally delivered at the time of the sale It proved that
aedges that under contract of hire but this is not
satisfactorily proved It appears however, that Brown was
months, when they were hed BY Brown to Craig as
apPve bs sy s9a brought BY HIM to louisiana
accodng TO the exsng JURISPRUDENCE in Kentucky the
when, under absolute bill of sale possession
the vendor such possession not merely faee evil
deemed fraudulent and imperative against creditors
Of the vendor who had no notice at the time they trusted
If the doctrine however be conceded in the fullest extent
where creditor trusts after he possession changed
Inc policy OF the law is to r9ect third from being
permitted to present himself before he public. When The
possession is taken by the vendee before the rights Of third
persons intervene the fact OF he anterior continued
sion would be regarded suspicious
to be considered in approaching the subsequent
Having taken possession of the property in ls45 and
properly Kentucky the T puH, his ae
supposing that The sale real and in good faith:
II such would have been the rights of the plaintiff in Ken
n to a% e
rights Of the lessees credors athongh the essees
possession and his declarations might have induced them to
We have considered this upon the that the
conviction Of he District Judge and under the testimony
adduced by the plaintiff cannot unauthorized.
hfs s inns aG! @ % R 5 ' f ess
hiring the near relationship existing baiween Brown and
Crags wife who Owned them, was circumstance which
this case in the opinion of the District Judge from suspicion
on that score We cannot his opinion without dis,
cediting Two witnesses whom he believed and whose
mony was not impeached on the trial
with asd 6aDsI Cont op tsn aS "s
Short and Thoma' for defendant and appellant.
Where it is shown that the creditor frauduenty obtained
possession of certain property Of his debtor absentee
into hi. State such wrongful and fraudulent act gives
men OF such property by the creditor will be dissolved
EDLEY T. POWELL rs. LAWSON B. MCKEE. ..4ppeal
from the Tenth Judicial District Court Parish of Madi
All in the Supreme Court. KING, j.. Per
cnriam This suit commenced by attachment under
which three slaves and wagon belonging the defendant
who an absentee seized The attachment was
dissolved and the plaintiff has appealed.
The evidence shows conclusvey that the plaintiff obtained
Of Mississippi where the defendant resided, and cande,
timely removed it to this State, without the consent
the PRESENT The Wrongful and rsudai act
Of the plaintiff o. bringing property Of the defendant into
did not in dssolvng the attachment The judgement of
for plaintiff and appellant H. Dunlop for defendant and
appellee.
Art 1892 G. c has application controversies for the re-
moval of administrators of SUGGESTIONS for alleged mis-
eond9ct PROCEEDINGS OF that kind are governed by Art
order for her appointment has been made and she has
action for the removal Of the admins traitor for alleged
d s snd
toinqures into the conduct of administrators and tech
ODJecuOns opposed 10 Sucn Investigations are emil
tied to little favor.
ANNA S. McCoMAs, TUTRIx u.s. MANUEL Roou1LLo
ADMINISTRATOR. Appeal from the Second judicial Dis
trct Court Parish of PlaQuemneS No 1855 in the Su.
preme Court. KING, j.. Per The plaintiff rep
resenng herseft to be the tuz of the minor children and
heirs of James and Eliza Lee instituted this action
the defendant from the adminratoship of the
guilty of gross of his duties The defendant excepted
to the capacity of the plaintiff to maintain the action
ing she had not been appointed the tux Of the minors
and was without authority to interfere in the administration
a Inc b sustained n the I IONA on the
required fred By law as tph and that letters Of tqoIshp had
ment had been made The petition dismissed and the
plaintiff has appealed.
which provides that until letters of tuOrshp shall have been
delivered the tutor he shall interfere with the admin
saon the property OF the minor except for the purpose
of preserving tin cases which admit Of no delay.
sumins personally the administration Of the minors estate
previous to furnishing the required security 1t has app
alleged misconduct Proceedings of tins kind are governed
by the Ols article of the Code Of Practice, which authorizes
removal of an administrator.
titled to the tuonhp which she has claimed order for
her appointment has been made and she has actually taken
she concerned the proper administration the
which has devovcd upen the minors and her duty to
facility to iuquers into the conduct of administrators
and we may observe that technical objections opposed to
26S 10 L. (. 81: C. p lois; G G. isl A '''p
But It'll commended that if the plaintiff interfere her
authority limited informing the Judge of the which
render the removal of the administrator necessary that
further proceedings only be prosecuted upon the direction
OF the Judge and that order to that effect has been grant
ed, c. P. 1016.
This exception taken in the below and the
proceedings were not permitted to reach the point where 1t
could have been urged 1t is made by law the duty OF the
direct proceedings to be instituted against admin
lstraor receiving information of his misconduct aud is
to be presumed that the requisite order would have been
made, the Judge had been the threshold with
objection which he supposed to be valid to the night of the
plaintiff to interfere for any purpose.
The exception opinion should have been ovenuled
The Judgment of the District Court is therefore reversed
IN hp
law the defendant paying the costs of this appeal Frost
and New hoIter for plaintiff and appellant Lombard and
Maurian for defendant and appellee.
When the testimony too and indefinite to show that
at the time OF the protest of bill of exchange the
doser was IN the habit of receiving his letters at Post
ONCE In when the notice OF protest deposited there
Will be judgement of non suit
MECHANICS AND TRADERS BANK u.s. B. G. TERRY
RE inpeaL fcom the Late Ninth Eistr.s. ca,z. af