The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-03-14
Supreme Court of Louisiana.


renewed by the counsel tor the third p0ssessOf IN his
right. transfeee of his client such wrongful act
will not enable the transefee to beneft by the plea VI
prescription
JOSIAH srANpRoUeH u.s. DousALL MCCALL, on the
Third Opposition of R. c. STOCKTON. ...6ppeaL from The
Tenth judicial District Court No. 1886 SLlDELL j.
Per The plaintiff has been endeavorng Tor seven
to enforce his rights mortgage creditor upon tract
of land In this protraced litigation he at first opposed
by Collier represented by Stockton his counsel and supse-
quenty by Stockton in his own right.
This suit commenced 1912 by order OF seizure
and sale upon note which fell due in January is42 and
David Scarborough curator Of the of Jesse Harper
To these notes Mccall gave mortgage with war
rant de non dienana9 N0uce OF lie ode oi se'Hie "
Collier obtained Injunction against the execution OF the
order of seizure and sae alleging that he was himself he
Of all the notes. having purchased them at sale by
the marshal OF the United States and also that Josiah stan
bough had NO title to the note because DAVID Sanbrough
the of the succession of Harper and who was the
of the note had no authority to transfer It IN .a
brongh which affirmed by The supreme Gourt o. TINS
in is4s. In that litigation stockton WINS the attorney and
counsel OF Collier See the case as reported IN Robinson
In 1876 Stockton brought his individual name
against David Scarborough. curator IN which after reeng
the two other mortgage and proceeding them
by order of seizure and sale he alleged that he STOCKTON
Collier Gin 1879 that Mccall was insovent that the land
was his only security for the debt Upon these allegations
the writ of seizure and sale obtained by the curator.
After the 6al decree, in lols, by the Supreme Court OF
the United States favor of Josiah Sanbough and before
mandate decree Of the Supreme Court OF the state
rsstonng the jurisdiction OF the District Gout with regard
Stockton appeared in the present suit by third opposition
ond % 10 I had ben
SUSPENDED during seven years by the injunction obaned by
Gos, The % is The
by pnrehase from Compton in January lsE, who
which the order of seizure sale obtained extn
guished by prescription and that DavdSanbough CURATOR
mad no authority to transfer the note. "a
iuupm
Judgment the plaintiff prosecues the present appeal
lsis down TO at least 1888 the plaintiff judcally
strained from prosecuting his SUIT and this restraint from
stockton For although he acted first only the
of Collier in the injunction obtained by him. Stockton
Injunction and be considered from the date of the
sgnment the party who prosecuted the SUIT IN the
Court below who took suspensive appeal TO the Supreme
Court. and afterwards carried the cause by writ OF error to
the Supreme Court OF the United States If Collier had not
and sale and Stockton succeeding to his rights had not
continued this judicial restraint the plaintiff would yeas
ceeis The question then presents itself whether one who.
Ss Of R T used e psn 81 ,H Of
Justice restrain another IN the prosecution of night, can
stoned to defeat that right An affirmative to tins
proposition would involve principles shocking to reason and
it has been said in argument that in the prescription 6sr
cn eansa good iah no, eaudd AS genera he I be
NOT paid debt may plead p[eserip'on In doing SO he
oend good conscience yet the law acting upon consider
oath and compel him to declare whether the debt been
paid not But the rule has it, exceptions Thus if having
debt in order that he attempt to collect it from other
parties who also bound to me and my debtor should take
false pretences until the deai Aberat0frs had eaDsed
he would not be permitted to escape upon the plea Of pre-
from acting See Nongier Des Iettres de change, vol l.
p. 81 also Tropong; Prescription, sec. GAG.
The rule that he who thus paalzs the right of another
shall benefit by his sc to prescribe against that night
peculiar Jurisprudence but as it has its
IL d
principle of equity in England and the United States In
party applies Court OF Equity, and carries on an un
founded litigation protacted under circumstances and for
g s q Uas T Of Eo aes
for that night of which the party prosecuting
nm founded claim has deprived his adversary See the East
India Co u.s. Cumpion-n Bhgh, l58; Storys Equity vol
The appellee questions the validity OF the transfer of the
W no endorsed to the plaintiff upon the ground that was
the property of succession and that no Judicial autho
made eguIay and to the detrment of the creditors
heirs succession the plaintiff would be deemed trns
tee for them but his possession holder would certainly
enable him for the of arresng prescription.
In order that the opponent may be protected from any
think proper pay the debt and that the proceeds of the
property il sod may go to the party really en-
ii, led to them will make provision decree.
1t was therefore decreed that the judgement of the cout
below be reversed that the plaintiff have leave to proceed in
ceed Of the sale OF the mongaged property described the
plaintiffs petition be brought BY the he sheriff into eS s .t Tor
Harper upon due notice given to the proper representative
q saa @ % orsse clam he msv deno bs
court subject to the order OF the court to be rendered con-
tradictoriy with said succession OF Jesse Harper and is
further ecreed that said Stockton pay the of the ap
peal and that the costs OF the opposition IN the court beow
lee Stockton and Steele for third opponent and appellant
Art 2422 c. c. which prohibits attorneys from purchasing
lgious rights which tall within the jurisdiction of the
courts before which they practice, under the penalty
Of nullty and the payment of all SITS, damages and
GEO w. WATERsToN Us. THos WEBB, ADMINIsTRA-
TOR OF THE ESTATE OF P. S. STEPHENSON. ..4ppeal
from the Eighth judicial District Cour. Parish of st.
Helena No I27 EUsTIs G. j.. Per curian This
is an appeal from Judgment of the Court of the Eighth
Judicial District, dsmissing the plaintiffs petition the
ground that his action cond not be maintained because
an attorney at law practising in the court before which
the right be enforced The plaintiff has taken this
appeal
It appears that Judgment rendered in the late Court
Of Probates OF St. Helena against Webb administrator of
taken by Webb to this Court 1t filed the 10th Feb
1876 and Judgment was rendered on the 10th May
lS47 The Judgment in favor OF the New Orleans Gas
Light and Banking COMPANY and by act of sale passed
before notary in New Orleans on the 9TH Of February
III pending the appeal the plaintiff became the purchaser
from the bank of this claim against the succession of
bt Ggshe with Es Of 0ss T
plaintiff had connection with the litigation between the
bank and Webb and the purchase appears to have been
The article 2422 G. c. which prohibits attorneys from
purchasing tigons nights which fall within the jurisdiction
of the before which they practice under the penalty
of nulity and the payment of all damages and int
rests imperative and the District Judge did not
giving effect The Judgment of the District Court is there
fore affirmed with Watterson in p. and A.
Billiard plaintiff and appellant E. T. Merck for defen
dant and appellee
An objection that the commission of Levee Inspector
should be Produced when he witness. must be made
when he Offered witness and afterwards nadmis
sibe. A claim upon a due-bil for work done a
public Levee given by the inspector of Levees, not
subject to the prescription of year and three
ANDREW MURRAY, EFT. AL, os. THE PARISH OF TEN
fppen from the TcaA judicial District Court,
Parish of 7cnsas. No. 1913 .RosT, Per curiam
This a suit based upon due bill signed by Solomon b.
ampey Levee Inspector of the Parish of Tensas bearing
date the 18th April 1874 and purporng to have been given
work done public Levee that Pa1sb The answer
denies the capacity of Sampey Levee Inspector and his
authority contract for work the public Lsvce and to
acknowledge debt due by the defendants also pleads the
prescription of and thres The cse before
be appeal of the defendants. Stampey be-
half of the plaintiff witness and proved that he
Ievee Inspector aledged in the petition The objection
made by the defendants that his commission should have
been produced. ought to have been made when he
offered as witness. and is now inadmisslbe
II is not denied that the work done, that it
necessary and the price charged allowed by law Under
that facts the Police Jury would probably be bound
if Stampey had exceeded his authority But
atised that he did and that he had the right to
knowledge in writing, as he has done the amount due the