The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-02-04

537O3; females, 30 9l7; value of products, $l05,-
2lS,3OS. Sales of real estate by the house of
BECKER g. Co., S6.S4S, 1877.
| Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Monday. February 8. $751;. Present-al the Judges.
1. EUsTIs J. Lynch ct al. VS.. Williams ct al
| This is a suit negotiable note, against the
maker and endorsers A third party interviewed.
There was judgment against the defendant in IA
vor of the plaintiff and the intervenor appealed.
The Court held that the possession Of the note was
prfma facta evidence of ownership, but the inter-
venor claimed having lost it, and was allowed to
prove it. Judgment was reversed as to the plain
| tiff, and remanded for new proof, etc.
2. Wallis vs. J. II. Thomas, Injunction suit
against order of seizure and sale. On the trial,
| a continuance was asked and denied Several OBJ
jections made to the proceedings in the sale,
all of which were overrued, and judgment dssolv-
ing the injunction This Court is of opinion there
vas no error. Judgment affirmed with costs.
8. LIE Blanc VS.. Nolan. Appeal from judg-
ment against the defendant for $3.50 damages, in
possessory action. The damages were awarded
| for trespass on the premises. Judgment affirmed
| with costs.
4, Wright vs. Roussei ct al. . Appeal from
against the plaintiff and his surety. Judgment
affirmed with costs.
| 5. Wright VS.. Morpky. . Judgment affirmed
on the same grounds in the case of Wright VS..
Rousse ct al.
| 6. Winchester Hall VS.. Daunts. Judgment
| appealed from affirmed with costs.
7. State on the relation of Gen. j. L. Lewts VS.
Louis Bourdeloa,, Auditor ct al This is a suit
for an appropriation of Of money (S2500D
granted to the military of New Orleans. The de.
PENDANT refused to issue the warrant the ground
that there act of appropriation, without
which it could not be paid of the treasury. 1t
decided that the statute of 1850, granting this
sum appropriated it, and mandamus was awarded
requiring its payment. Judgment affirmed
s. Dubouchet VS.. Boageye. This is an action
for slanderous words spoken. There verdict
and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of 5000,
which is affirmed
8. Berger & Bro,v, vs.. Tht5odaal1 ct al. Suit
in joint obligation, and all the parties not joined
The exception to the action sustained. The Court
say the defendant is not bound on other grounds.
Judgment affirmed
10. LIE Blanc VS.. Nolan. .Possessory action
for certain lands, and damages for intrusion There
was a verdict and judgment for $3.50 in damages.
Judgment affirmed
II. Rosr j.. .Bourg, Err, etc., VS.. Niles ct al.
Suit note for part of the price of piece of land
: running into the town of Thibodauxvle. The de-
d fence is that the seller is unable to deliver the
quantity Of land sold it bordered on the Bayou La
= .'-~.aa- nat haund liz
Judgement for the amount of the note affirmed with
costs
g IL Boudraur's administrator, VS.. Valery Ber-
y r;,.;z
the rights and titles which the estate had against
! Valery Bergeron, for moneys received, ETC. II is
the duty of the Administrator to ascertain the ma
and extent of the of the succession before
he sells them. The judgment refusing to homolo
gate the proceedings of the Administrator is
affirmed.
IL. Elihu Mitchell vs. x. r. Barron Suit for
overseer's wages. His claim was rejected on the
| ground of bad management. Judgment for de.
PENDANT affirmed.
! IA. Hnger VS.. Nolan. Suit for wages or COM
pensaon for setting certain sugar kettles for de.
iendant. Case involved only facts and differences
from testimony. Judgment for plaintiff for 1914
affirmed.
10 Cole, Administrator, VS.. Babin ct al. The
plaintiff filed tableau of the estate of Bergeron.
The defendants opposed it. Judgment sustaining
the oppostlons is reversed and the oppostions dis
| missed with costs, and the funds distributed a O.
| cording to tableau.
lo.-Dupre Curator, etc. VS.. Maronge. . Suit for
land alleged to belong to the succession which
pianhh administers. The title was grant of
land made exclusively to the husband, and enures
10 MS exclusive benefit. Judgment for plaintiff
affirmed.
H. Dupre, Curator, etc. VS.. Maronee The
facts and law are the as in the preceding case
Judgment for plaintiff affirmed.
10. Welsh VS.. 7erreJonne. :. Suit for a slav
The plaintiff denied his signature to sale of the
slave, and it was proved to be genuine Judgment
Tor defendant misunderstanding the right to the
child, fany.
~. Sargent vs.. Slater. :. .Redhibitory action
Tor damages for the loss of slave by an incurable
disease Judgment for plaintiff affirmed.
70 Thomas w. CHM, to the use of Robertson
vs. blanchard. .Possessory action and DANA es
claimed for trespass Judgment giving plaintiff
possession and 800 in damages affirmed
81 .Stewart Vs. Whitman. Suit for a certain |
sum due on failure to comply with an agreement |
to remove certain rubbish. Judgment for plaintiff
affirmed.
%. SL1DELL, ]. Holden VS.. Tanner, Suit |
against defendant surety for one Jordan for rent.
The case turns on evidence of acts and facts in
volved in the case. Judgment reversed, and iudg-
ment given for plaintiff for 1894 and COSTS
%. Rees y Segsr VS.. Steamer Mary Foley anu
Oachers. This is action by the owners of
the steamer Ben Adams to recover damages occa-
stoned by collision between the two steamers
Held, that the defendants were not to blame, but
that the fault was with the plaintiffs Judgment
reversed, and judgment for defendants with costs
"a Dooley VS.. Delaney. . This is an Injunction
suit. Judgment sustaining it reversed. Judgment
dissolving the injunction, etc.
25 PRESTON, j.. .1Nt5odaux ct AL vs. Bern.
1r@ ct aI- Suit for tract of land on the La I
ourche Held that the claim of the plaintiffs is | {
totally unfounded Judgment affirmed
26. Savin VS.. Louisa He5srt, his q,;fs. The
husband sued for separation from bed and board !
rom his wife, on the ground of abandonment. e
She reconvened and claimed separation from bed j
md board, and alimony, because of his abandon.
nent OF her in grievous Illness in the birth of an
'niy child the issue of their marriage There was
Judgment in her favor, limiting her demand to a 8
separation of bed and board and eight dollars nor
month tor alimony Judgment affirmed.
81. George B. AIiHigans Tsstan,enta,v Ere r