The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-06-03

mining the &enuneness OF the signature nc Shouiu
interpose between himself and the loss by forged
bills?
"The signature interposed is the protection he
makes use to save himself from the consequences Of
the neglect of that care and caution in taking bills
from strangers. which the law imposes on him."
JAR. Gsddss, appellants, VS.. Bennst, aal. -.
Where the seller Of personal property is permitted
to remain in possession, and disposes Of the pro-
perty to an innocent purchaser, he will hold against
the previous purchaser. Judgment for defendants
affirmed.
Denton, appellant, vs. Fowlsr's Heirs, Ap-
pellss. Judgment affirmed.
Dugam VS.. Municipality No. Tsoo. An
action for damages. Verdict Of $4,000 for plaintiff.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded. Slidell
| reluctantly concurred.
Philips VS.. Hodge,. :. Judges divided and judg-
ment of the District Court affirmed.
Plaintiff instituted suit for $4,000, and his attor-
ney compromised for about $500. Plaintiff en-
deavored to show that the attorney was authorized
tocompromise for $1,000, and exceeded his authority
in taking less. There was judgment for defendant
Eustis and Sldell for afirmance, and Preston and
Rost for reversal.
Ezscutors Of Haggarty VS.. Bo,cers, Appel
liant. .Redhibitory action. Judgment affirmed
Hugh Murphy, appellee VS.. Mutual Bsne1s,
L.fs and Fire Insurance Company. :. Judgment
for plaintiff affirmed.
Municipality No One VS.. Pance, appellant. :.
The ordinance which infcts penalty for the nom
payment of dues, is illegal. Judgment reversed
and one for defendant.
BsenUenw VS.. Citizens Bank. :. When chose
Is sold at public sale, and it afterwards appears
that 1t was entitled to credit equal to tenth of
Its amount, 1t authorizes rescision. But if pur-
chaser afhrms the sale, he can only claim
dimnution OF the price of one-tenth. As the price
was only six dollars for judgment of $4,000 the
amount is below the jurisdiction of this Court
Judgment for defendants affirmed
Baateracorth VS.. Myers, appellant. :. This case
turns on the construction of Mississippi statutes
The return on process of executed" is proof in
that State OF service. twelve months bond exc
cuted on the sale of the debtors property, and
forfeited, is not satisfaction of the Judgment
on which a suit will be sustained in this State
Judgment for plaintiff affirmed
Elizabeth Hubgh, vs.. Carrollton Railroad. :. On
a rehearng, the Chief Justice delivered an elabo.
rate opinion, in which he examines the civilians
and the modern commentators. He cites Grotius.
who quotes instances among the ancients, who
paid sort of indemnity to the families of the slain
The Roman law, however, forbade any judgment
or injuries to the person of fireman. because the
value of the body of the freeman cannot be estima
ed IN money Even Grotius, who writes on natu-
al law, is obliged to consider the indemnify as a
'ort OF gft-an affair of conscience, rather than
an obligation of strict duty. The Court have been
unable to find any text of the Roman law to sus.
stain an action of damages for the death of free
man. If any such exists, it has escaped the re.
searches of Gibbon and Mackelday.
= 1shss Ss-si.h iaw aeonsains ~uoh nnosi~ie--
Article 1894 of our Code, provides THAT every
ct OF man, that causes damage to another,
bliges him by whose fault it happened, to repair
~ This is taken from the Spanish law, and is
lso found in the Code Napoleon.
The construction given to this article in France,
ecogniziDg such an action, is derived from the
visionary laws of that country. Those were never
dopted here, and consequently the courts of this
State will not construe the article of the Code by
hat system. The judgment for defendant at.
irmed.
The opinion is one of great lengh, and much
earning. We think it would make an interesting
lrticle for a legal journal.
The State, appellee, VS.. Blanchard, appellant.
The clauses Of the 95th article Of the Constitution
which restricts eligibility to Parish offices, to per-
ons who have the right to vote in such Parish
ontemplates State officers. In interpreting the
Goth article, which declares that no person shall
lod or exercise, at the same time, more than one
vil office of emoluments, except that of Justice
If the Peace, we hold that it contemplated State
'ficers. See Dorsey vs. Vaughn, s Ann 1856.
Public offices and employments are established for
he benefit Of the people, not of the functionaries
md 1t seems to us that laws restricting the choice
II the people, and the of selections, should not
eceive large construction, as to take in, by
implication, Offices requiring professional skill, \
md mot representative in their character. We
hink there is nothing in the terms of the statutes
'lted, or the letter or spirit of the Constitution
which prohibits the people of town from electng
Is Surveyor, person who resides in an adjoining
Parish. There were serious doubts in the minds
'f some ofmy brethren, upon this case but on a
Of the whole matter, the result has
been their concurrence in the affirmance of the
Judgment.
FtoUer vs.. Dotpns.. judgment reversed and
me for plaintiff Where the planter orders his
cotton to be sold Immediately, but is cognizant thai
ne factor has retained it and does not object il |
c'm- 'NN :" 'oieo "'e opjscuon wheh the
ia,'s' ana .ne cotton Is sold at lower price
he should make his objection at once, to hold the
actor LIABLE Judgment reversed, and one given
or plaintiff. with legal interest.
Absolom 4 Crocker VS.. Keilum. Under the Act of |
\. o.,h 49,, " ass. VI aos.onuhg deo'ors'
.sn, Tha 20 .aaDo ~ n,e o'eui'or anu not yan
se' me statute OF is4o' In relation to insolvent
cd $500 :; .s' " Apply on'y 70 persons who