The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-02-19
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
tDecisiOns rendered on Monday, February IS, 1901

Supreme Court of Louisiana.
LDeci.ions rendered on Monday. February IS. 1881
LOUIS A. DuHART, appellant, Us CRY BANK,
appellee. The courts have night, by the char
ter OF the Bank, to erase mortgage given to
secure loan, unless it has been paid .. Judgment
affirmed.
SUCCESSION OF LOUIS RIvET, on the appIica-
ton Of Widow Rivet RIyET AND J. H. RILLs, /
appellants. To constitute property dotal there |
must be an express declaration TO that effect. |
The constitution of dowry is in the nature OF |
gift from the wife to the husband, and the nten-
ton to give must beceaT and unequivocal." Tried
by this rule her property is paraphernal, and there
is no evidence that its proceeds used by the
husband Case rernanded for new trial at the
,costs Of Widow Rivet
J. c. BEATTY, Us. TANNER, appellant .., No
proof Of the endorsement of the note by the
payee. Judgment of nonsut.
JOSEPH TAILLEU, Us. JENNINGS, appellant.
" We are not prepared to say that in some cases a
court in granting a continuance may not impose
conditions upon the party moving for it, though no
power to do is expressly granted by the code OF
practice" This case, however, did not require
such conditions Judgment reversed and re-
manded for new trial.
THOMAS G. RAMEKIN, as. NOLAN STEWART,
Er AL, appellants Questions OF fact. j Judg-
ment reversed, and one in favor of defendants.
SAMUEL LOCKE, rs. STEWART, EFT AL. =. This
case similar to the one against defendants.
Same judgment.
JoHN SHANNON, as. SARAH A. CHINN AND
HUSBAND appellants. >. The case turns on oues-
tons OF fact, and the judgment appears fully
tanned by the evidence.
| W. NJ. SHAW, tutor, Us. ZEBULoS YORK, ET
ALL appellants. =. The words in a will, :" hereby
| constitute the children Of my brother, William
Gregsn, my heirs" convey all of the estate of the
| testator, and he dies intestate as TO no part.
Judgment affirmed.
| JIM LANCASTER Us Lucy CARRIEB, Appel
lant. A note not negotiable does not fall within
the prescription OF five years. return OF citation
must show either that il was served on the de-
iendant in person, at the domicl of the defend
ant, some free white person above the age OF
| fourteen living at the domicil OF the defendant.
This return did not show the service to have been
at the domie Of the defendant and was defective.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
| J. LALLANDE as. BREAUx. -. The charge Of 2l
per cent for accepting, by commission merchant,
is not illegal. But the charge Of q per cent for
advancing and then of per ct mt, is illegal. When
an account is rendered containing a charge of per
cent. and accepted, it is ratification of the charge
OF the highest conventional interest up to the date
Of rendition, but will not authorize the charge be-
yond that date. A planter ships his crop to one
factor after having contracted foF its consignment
tn another, from whom he has received supple
| and accommodations, based on promise 70 shiI
his crop; be is bound to allow commissions 10 tn,
factor whom he deceives. Judgment amended il
, conformity with this opinion.
: RuCKER AND HUsBAND Us. A. LEDoUx & Co
/ On The 7Ih Of May, 1889, Plaintiff and her hns
4 hand, with James Lsake and his wife, execute
! Il moFtgage in favor of the Canal Bank on a trat
4 of land belonging to James Leake, and on a numbs
of slaves belonging 10 Mrs. Rucker, to secure mol
| OF 5000, borrowed of the Bank On June 6, 1873!
| the same parties morTgaged the same lands an
, slaves 10 A, Ledoux & Co., for $4,000. The
all tn Gavab - Narss raF
charter. Mrs Rucker was not bound TO Ledoux
i Co. as it is not shown that the debT accrued 10 Ia,
8 benefit. Led0ux d Co. purchased the debt of ID
Bank, and on March 9, 1874, obtained an order
5 seizure under the Bank debt against the slaves
Mrs. Rucksr. On April ii 1874, they Obtained q
. order of seizure on their own mortgage, und,
o which the land alone was sold for Sll 466, wle
0 was imputed TO the payment Of their own debt an
no part 20 the Bank debt. Mrs. Rucker enj0iBe
their execution and claims that the proceeds of oh
land shall he imputed TO the Bank debt, the oul
n one bearing on, her slaves
The lower Court perpeluated the injunction an
ordered the proceeds Of the land be imputed frs
10 the payment Of the Bank debt. Ledoux Il CO
!. appealed
=" The transfer of the Bank debt to Ledoux g. Co
IN effects change in the relation of the parties,
" these debts.
b The Canal Bank had the right of selecting out c
" which offs creditors it would coeIce payment. B
The debtor who paid would be subrogaIed TO Il
T. rights of the Bank against the other cO-debtors
l. LedOux d Co cannot devote the entire proceed
!, of Leakes lands to second mortgage, 10 d
m stroy Mrs. Rncker's right Of subrogaioD. But,
e. the other hand, LsdOux 8, Co, as second mor
= gagees Of Leake, have right to enforce again
Mrs. Rucker the liability of the property which 81
morigaged TO the Bank for her obligation in solid
r provided they give her the benefi OF her right
suhrogation for Leaks share. Ledoux 81 Co. b
4 ing second mortgages, cannot say that Mrs. Rue
er's properly shall bear the whoe burden of 4
= Canal Banks debt nor can Mrs Rucker saw ia
;, Leakes property shall bear the whole of the bu
y den. Mrs Rucker, being one Of four debtors,
u hound TO pay one.fourth. Lsdoux & Co. must il
pnte one-iourth of the money arising from the sa
of Leake's land TO the Canal Rank debt, and I
the remaining three-t -tourhs authorized TO pr
ceed against Mrs. Rucket's slaves She is
leased from. any liability on the second mortgage.