The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-03-02
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condensed Decisions-Nrw ORLEANS, Feb. %,

only De az acked BY reason of fraud usurpatiOn of
power on the part OF the auditors; and tie absence
objections of that nature the execution Of the award by
though it had been duly homologaed:. subsequent
execution OF the award by the wife, will cure the ant
,he eSseniqn Of lime within which she agreed the
ing upon party, formal instrument not indspen.
sable voluntary execution involves a remuneration of
the exceptions which might have been opposed to it.
s. M c. COBB as. WIN. S. PARHAM EFT .4ppeal
from the Tenth Judicial District Court No 1879 in the
Supreme Court. .SLIDELL go Per curiam: The trans
actions out of which the ut grown began under
relations OF intimacy and good will which followed by
mutual complaints and controversy After acrimonious
litigation the parties seem have reflected for time upon
Its injurious consequences themselves and creditors
and made agreement to submit the dispute
arbtruto whom they clothed with the authority of AMIGA
bic compounders The controversy involved large
called the BuckhOm Plantation. Cot which Mrs. Cobb
and Lowry joint popretos and the settlement of
mutual accounts and claims. Among other powers vested
in the arbtratO that of deciding what the
plantation and slaves should in future be managed and
olsd and what disposition should be made of the
whose they should be shipped and by whom applied
until the claims against should be qudated The then
existing also placed under the control of the aba
and Lowry July 1876 and the abt requested
TO render their award before the 10Th February, lS47
Ii being found that the award would not be prepared
TIME stipulated an tor extension until the 18th
by Cobb in his individual and agent of his wife,
The arbato rendered their final award the 18th March
ensuing October term upon er parte motion Of Lowry
and on The like e. pGrte msion was made the judgement
husband instituted the present suit Her petition the
2w own r Of the the plantation and slaves by and Lowry
Ct the her husband as the oversee that
the award of certain arbato about deprive her of
the control and supervision of the estate and her
hs injury that would arise from Parhams aledged usupa-
ton, she asked and obtained an injunction.
The defendants den ed the night of the plaintiff the
supervon and CONTROL and justified the of Parham
der the award of the arbtrators.
The question the the binding of the
award upon the plaintiff lift be binding the Judgment of
conceded BY the defendants that the award has
been duly homologated IT also conceded that
time for making the award has been proved But they
the hot a
absence of an express authorization from the wife to extend
cured by her voluntary execution of it.
We opinion with the defendants counsel that
evsed by the Court for errors Of nt and could only
by reason Of fraud usurpaton Of gower on The
Davis Leeds L. R. an; and that, The absence Of OBJ
W. ss % g. The
wife would cure the want a; of an The
consider the facts which the defendants rely to
show execution of the award by Mrs Cobb and her hqs
arbitTstO By their award Invested both Lowry and
cultivation leaving Mrs Cobb, however. the privilege of
to take entire control and administration He required
to manage the property a. prudent was en-
governed by him alone, and not to be under the control of
the joint special authorization being given to him
He ship the in his name, as agent and control
These were TO apply the e Product Of the estate to the
payment of its expenses next to the payment Ct certain
due to Burke Wat Co. Hynes and the heirs of Mitchell
Provision made for partition
in he
Or inability The whole character Of the award the
the props.ors whose iniereence as demonstrated BY
their former deemed incompatible with the true
unief this award we find Psham entering upon his
mn:ifation; BaIfe, Wat Co. The former factors
upon his drafts as agent the funds their hands proceeding
@ wo
band was employed as an BY aaham ana
% he Se sa Mrs ebb
upon Parhams draft her allowance Of sl0OO she also re-
paid to her and which was accordingly by written dec
lions of the arbitrator placed to her credit BY Burke at
have been attempt her that of her husband
to interfere with his administration thus conducted In heT
All these facts well as Others which it is not necessary
10 a aed Ss 81 the awa the psnt 70 confirm
not binding upon party, formal instrument IS no'
n Of the Exceptions might have been opposed to
f oy :on Be-
for doing she received what was her own The answer
s nS them Um Who
himself be the agent Of both parties under the award 70
| both upon him and upon Lowry. :,
1t equally to say d that TIE paO anu cono
of which not directly IN the
"a eofSm Dc riciaa appreciation
tactic. Duranon, vol b. $780, The award was entire and
the plaintiff having accepted It's benefit must take e
It has been objected that Lowry had himself acted against
the spirit of the award by attempting to buy out creditors
for the Of using Their claims ous the plaintiff Ihe
to hat end The
tons Of the affect his right under the award
and apnean THOMAS for defendants and sppe
rehearng has been applied for in this case by thu
| SIM c. CoBp Us. WIN. s. PARHAM EFT. AL.....Appea
from the Tenth Judicial District Court Parish of Nadi
| son No. 1878 in the Supreme Court. =. SLIpELL J.
Per curiam Under the circumstances of this case which
have stated the decision of the upon the merit
we are of opinion that the conditional order of
| the injunction properly rendered. See S1.s
pDs ss % Gos nhss
appe al therefore dismissed at the costs OF the appes
| Same counsel as in the above case.
The Supreme Court will only review the opnio with
lower Courts when their decision is in the rec cues
| the grounds on which it is based, except whep
ton decided presented by the pleadngs
THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE EXCHANGE AZ w. NO |
Co. OF New ORLEANS, II. FLoRANcE SUE Avn rur
| THEIR RIGHTS u.s. E. YoRKE AND E. OGT, 80 70
! COMMISSIONERS OF THE EXCHANGE AND urs NC r |
J. j. HANNA SUBRoGATEp TO THEIR yf,b D;stxi.t |
| foRKE AND L. oGDEN''''In , ~ THE questions
| Court o. "em oTted"':., ~ si W Principally those
discussed in these consolidated cases we ,yss AFFIRMED
OF fact Inc Juusehen' VI ~ " :, decided. Per |
with costs APPOINT VI p'so,e We 1t that the District
riam 1t has been commended in argYant continuance
JUDD ought to have granted the on the ffJ,v;t of
on account the absence of WI conceded that the
the party to his materially e,ced but bill of
continuance applied for and the Court We con-
cepons the decshas To the ule of practice
cur with the counsel for the apan only review the Opn
which prevails IN this Court ! decision before u.s. with
ion OF the Judge when we where the question
decided presented by the Jof The rst instance on any
amlned the decision o. out having the evidence
Incidental question raised IN bill Of exceptions or re-
wi ieh the Cont acted sta Such to be the only
safe rule in reviewing sgor Florance appellant Micou
Carter and f. A. Brad leheanng has been applied for
for Hanna appellee.
this case. II or,s g. ,o,,, /. vn W,ru
| MICHAEL MING district Court Of Neuo Orleans m
peal IRON tae action by plaintiff alleged
EusTls y. -. arranty given by defendants plain