The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-06-15
Supreme Court OF Louisiana.
Condensed Decisions-NEw ORLEANS, June 4, 1874


JAMES PURvIs ct al. Us. J. H. HARMANsoN ct
al. Appeal from the Sepenth Judicial District
Court, Parish Of West Feliciana. .Rosr, J.
This il petitory action for land situated in that
portion of the Stale which not taken possession
OF BY the United States until some years after the
delivery of the colony of Louisiana. under the
treaty Of cession. The judgment below was in
favor of plaintiffs, and defendants appealed. This
judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court, and
Judgment rendered in favor OF defendants. with
cose in both courts. The Court relied principally
on the decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States in Strother Lucas, IL Peters 458 !;
Grignon, lessee. Us. Astor ct al, Howard 3i4;
Chouteau us. Eckhart, Howard 374; Nicole les
Bots Us. Samuel Bramel, A Howard 449; and also
referred to the following cases in our own reports
Martin co.; ii Martin 287; 3 L. r. 10Y; Jewell
Us. Porche, Ann. l4S and the recent cases of Pom
ALBA ct al vs. Copeland ct al, Ann. 96, and
Lobdell Us. Clark, 4 Ann. mot vet reported.l
tor. :. Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District
Court, Parish Of Madison. .RosT, J. .Judg-
menf below reversed, and decreed that the tableau
be amended so to distribute the sum of $5937 -,
now in the hands of the curator, among the credit
ors Of the succession and in proportion to the
amount of their respective claims the costs of this
appeal to be paid by the appellant the costs of the
District Court to be paid by the curator.
HENRY BApoN ct al u.s. JOHN B. BAHAN...
Appeal from the Eighth Judicial District Court,
Parish Of st. Tdmmony.. KING, j.. judgment
in favor Of plaintiffs affirmed with costs.
Where suit had been instituted promissory five
years after its maturity and there endorsement
the back of the note. after maturity, of
payment account but there evidence to show
in whoss handwriting the endorsement was, nor when
it put there held that the not thereby
lieved nom prescription.
JAMES McMAsTER us. T. w. MATHER. :. APP
peal from the Fourth District Court Of NeW Or
leans. .SLIDELL, j.. The Supreme Court held
that the plea Of prescription was properly main
tanned by the Court below. Defendant appears to
have lived in Mississippi from the date of the note
sued on to period five years subsequent to its ma
turity, and plaintiff was aware of his residence.
Hatch u.s. Gilmore, 3 Ann. Duncan Us. Ford Ty-
son Us. McGill. Is L. r. las. Per cursam: g We
are also of opinion that the District Judge did not
in refusing consider the note as relieved from
prescription by the endorsement which appeared
on it, 1t matured in lS41 and on the back was
written Received on the within, from J. E. More
house, eighty-one dollars in gold. Dec: II, 1913.
This suit was brought in March, lS4S. There was
no evidence TO show in whose handwriting the en-
dorsement was, nor when it was put there. The
case is fully covered by that of Roseboom Bill
lington, II johnson l67." Judgment affirmed with
COSTS
-WIDow C. A. SrANFIELD u.s. J. w. TUCKER,
Executor. Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District
Court, Parish Of Latourche Interior. In this
case the Judges equally divided, so the dscs-
ion of the Court below was affirmed. Chief Justice
Eusts concurred in the opinion of Justice Rost and
Justice King concurred in that of Justice Slidell.]
SLIDELL, J. Stanfield owed Robinson $4,000
To enable Robinson to pay himself, Stanfed trans
ferred to him notes of c. ALBERT, bearing 10 per
cent interest, amounting to about $l7 900. On
settlement between Robinson and Aubert, it was
found that Aubert was entitled to credits which
duced Stanfeld's claim to Sl3,657 IL, for which
amount Aubert gave Robinson new notes, payable
terest from the date of the settlement, LIST April,
1872, until paid. portion of these notes has been
paid some are yet unpaid, but all are considered
good The defendant admits that plaintiff is en-
titled to $3657 II, but contends that RObinson's
estate can only be held to pay per cent. interest
from April 1912. The plaintiff asserts right to
10 per cent. interest.
Under this state of facts, Justices Slidell and |
King were of opinion that Robinson had violated |
the mandate by taking new notes from ALBERT, and
thus novating the debt that the right of Stanfeld
by reason of this violation, was two-fod either to
consider Robinson as having made the ALBERT debt |
his own, and claim the surplus at once from him,
Or if he chose to adopt the transaction and treat
the new notes as acquired for his benefit and that
the plaintiff having in this action adopted the nova
ton, entitled 10 per cent interest," from 1872
defendant to have the privilege of giving the unpaid
notes Of Aubert in payment pro tdnto, IT he thinks
proper to do so.
Justice Rost and Chief Justice Eustis did not |
consider that plaintiff claimed the benefit of the
novation in this suit that the profits claimed were
made in violation of the mandate, not in execution
OF it, and the responsibility of Robinson is TO be
tested by other rules; that after an express denial
mat Robinson acted agent in novating the debt,
ne cannot be held responsible in that q pacty and
That judgment should be entered in or of the
plaintiff for the sum claimed at the rate OF per
cent. only. The judgment below, allowing 10 per
enf interest, was aft ymed, with costs.