The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-05-03
Supreme Court Of Louisiana.
Condensed Decisions-NEw ORLEANS, April 90, 1919


cordersed D.,;s;.x- NJ .,oa ,o,o
''o'..-N-w o"'AAN'' app" w. ''4'
claim by vendee for damages arising from the eviction
of slave by the vendor and expenses incurred in efforts
TO him from the vendor by whom he was
and harbored. is claim ez contraetu on which an
attachment will e Where the Sheriff takes insult
hceDt surety on bond for the delivery of property
which hss been attached he viii be adiudged TO be
bound to the plaintiff in attachment in the way as
the surety would have been.
HENRY CRANE Us. JOHN L. LEWIS, SHERIFF;
and JOHN L. LEWIS, SHERIFF, as. JOHN &. Nc
GREW, RHODES, WRIGHT & Co., wARRANToRs..
| Appeal from the Fourth District Court OF Men Or-
leans. .EUsTIs, c: j.: On the l3th March, 1913,
Henry Crane, residing in New Orleans, brought
suit by attachment in the Fourth District Court of
New Orleans against }. o. McGrew, resident Of
Alabama Under the Writ OF attachment the sheriff
selzed certaih negroes belonging 10 McUreW Wmch
were delivered up 10 MN on Inc execution OF
n0nd 10 tne sheriH Dy Mc0rew, win Rhodes,
Wrght q 20. as MS securities. On the lith June,
io4o, Srane ootained Judgment against McGrew
ior SlVN" WIN interest from date, ana p.yd nav.
ing Deen issued ana returned no properly found,
Grdne prought tne plesent ac'ioh against Lewis,
sheri, 10 render MN iiaDle ior SAID judgment, on
the ground mat the surety taken by nm on The
1ond was not soiVent anu suificieht. appeared
.he piaihtlI nao ooeetea 10 tle surety ana had
tdheh RUE Oh the sleIui, oh when tile sheriii
was auJudged 10 % poutd 10 painuh IN lhe same
mahhoi as iiio surety "ouiu nave peIn Doona.
JsuS'"' ~O'O'' No"--'. '''o S'ASAiii'
ana he Appealed.
III was assigned ior error ina, the a"achmeht,
unaer winch TIE dloIesafu pouu was TAKEN, was
Illegally and improperly issued IN case where ny
law no such writ OF process could issue, ana the
plalntlH was entitled TO no benefit from the bond
TAKEN uhoer IL. Inc point on Whicn tnis assign
nent was iounded was that tiie original acuon Oh
Crane against McUrew was 10 recover damages
ior Tort, ana that no aitacnineht couu iegaiiy
issue IN such case. frewi't u.s. Camlchael,
An. 94o owager Os. fisrce; ana homes q
SWansWlck Us. captain and owners OF tile steamer
Bel Air, recently decided IL therefore became
necessary to consider the nature OF the original
actloh, WMch was LOT S9VV, the value oi certdih
slave sold by McGrew, by his agent, to Crane.
winch slave aDsconded ana returned 10 MS Original
master (McireW), who received and harbored
him. Crane also claimed $500 for travelling ex-
penses, In order to effect the recovery OF his said
slave, Tor his hire, counsel lees, etc. Crane
alleged IN his petition that he went to the residence
OF McGrew III AiaDama, ana demanded MS siaVe'
but MctIrew refused to deliver nm up and sui re-
tains him IN his possession. Per cnriam ap-
pears ny inns peutlon ihat the defendant, McUreW,
had not only broken MS contract win the plalntfi,
but committed tort In harDoring and deprvng
him OF the service OF his slave out we 90 not I'M
dersand that his responsibility incurred by the Tor
mer is diminished or merged by an outrage, perhaps
crime being superadded to It: by the contract OF
sale, warranty against eviction IS implied, and al
though 1t Is true as general RUE that The right OF
the person evictng shonld nave existed before tle
sale, yet evciIons proceeding from the act OF Inc
vendor himself at all times give rise TO Tue aciion
OF warranty In this case Tue retentioh OF the slave
| by the vendor was violation OF the obligation
contracted by the contract OF sale, pr9stare, SER
Unm hd6ere hcere Ihere Deing suf1cient aliega-
lions III tne peuuon 10 susiaH .iie dcuoh e1,cO.'
trdctu, the Supreme court were OF opinion tlat ie
ment on the grounds now presented against its le
gality, had they been urged on motion to dissolve
| it. The evidence taken in the original case was
not before the Supreme Court, but i'll the Judgment
of the District Judge, IN that case, the sale Vas
considered the OASIS Oh Tue ac'iol'' anu Tie saie was
rescnded.
In the judgment below tie SnerlI was auJuuged
| to have direct recourse against McureW, the prih
clpai In the bohd ana y. N I" n&nt' ny WHOM Tue
bond was signed IN inc name Oh l1houes, virgin q
Co. as suretes. Wright has also appealed and as.
signed substantially the same grounds as the oherH
The Judgment OF The DISTRICT Court was therelefe
affirmed, with costs
An order making absolute rule taken by plaintiff in at
tachment the Sheriff, adludgng him to be liable to
plaintiff for subsequent Judgment that might be rem
dered in the same manner as surety taken by him Tor
the delivery OF property attached would have been Is
not final Judgment nor one from which an appeal
will lie.
HENRY CRANE u.s. JOHN Z. MCGREw AND JOHN
L. LEWIS, SHERIFF. .APpedt from me Fourm
District Court Of New Orleans. .EusTIs' =. -;
Appeal by Lewis, Sheriff, from an ORDER rendered
below on a rule taken against INN by painful
holding said Sheriff 10 De personally itipie 10 pain
UNI 10, any juagnema '.'a. w ,alan hr
IN! II. the sr'l'e 1,,J @ h;nh nro,ar,y '..s ~.
Said She'ili gu ppiiu T;i Mn'bn .uio 49, We enI
leasea mpu s,'a; a.o II ae held that his was moi,
goou anu In. no. ono rro,n which an anneaI can
nndl .,.s, 10 d;s U VIII costs
.-.: ;..o,.., ,a.I
Inc salay Oh ,h W 1870 hx ,hs Rcd Of RanI
u"ae, -, Tue exsmn fo heinz rendered liable for
| t!'aar'...s.,.,, si7 r. md ,,t 1as7 r. ~
| ' I.--.
MERCHANTS BANK IN LIQUIDATION, ETC. ON
| Appeal from The Fifth District Court Of NeD Or
leans .EusrIs, G. j. Appeal 6 Icc cc e rom
a Judgment, by which debt of Sligo &c due him.
being the balance of his salary as one OF the Com,
missioners of the late Merchants Bank, which had
been allowed on tableau OF distribution as PR,
vlleged debt, was held 10 DE partially exthgnlshed
of the Commissioners OF SAID bank against Copand.