The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-02-15
Supreme Court OF Louisiana
Monday, February 10, 1851. . .Present-all the Judg

l. EusTis " J... .LeUy VS.. IonrnoT. SUIT
TO recover the amount OF retail store account in
fonte Coupee. The jury, alter allowing some
claims In compensation, returned verdict tor the
Plaihuh on which the judgment allowed interest.
Inns is objected to- but as there was no motion Tor
new .'iai oeio"' .ne osment is ailrfned'
& Deco"" vs. 1no"r0'". suit to recover on
certain notes. purchased at constaoes sale Tor
%oo' Inc court decided IN the case OF 4u0ftn' VS.
v'efo' !ua"r'm' annual heP' 1876 that under the
OIL .he OBJECTS SOFA as given IN the con-
s'aoie advertisement ana return, the sale mad no
vanaty Judgment reversed ana judgment Tor
oe.ehua"' win COSTS
o. oe0e'I vs. Ancuf@fA, Gu at.' injunction
against a SAFE under execution, obtained without
legal grounds lhe District Judge gave small
credit and dissolved the injunction for the balance
with twenty per cent damages against the prnci-
pal and his surety, and they appealed. No dam
ages have been asked by the appellee for rivo-
lous appeal" Judgment affirmed.
a. Harmed to use Of Head Buckmer 4 Co., VS..
Gleason. Suit to annul certain sales of lots and
subject them to plaintiffs execution The de-
PENDANT disclaimed any interest in the property but
admitted 1t mad been conveyed to him without con-
sideration. Judgment Tor plaintiffs affirmed.
| D. 1ualfara d Arnrsfeaa VS.. AtAef " Ba<S'mer. e.
suit against husband ana wife Tor amount OF a
Prohissory hote' signeu ny FER win the authority
Of her husband ana In FAVOR oil uraham' who be-
came ihso'Ve"'' nus ss"uio 'h'ef'eheo 'uog
men. reversed ana judgment dismissng the inter-
Vehtioh piaihuh recovering the amount oil note
and interest with mortgage.
d. kosT, J.'. Smth, ct a. VS.. Hereford. -.
The plaintiffs were called upon by the Levee In
spector to make levee IN front OF woodland owned
by defendant, nonresident. The work was done,
ana an order seizure taken against defendant Tor
the amount. lie enJoined II on several grounds
There was judgment dissoiving injunction but
against pla,htihs as oil hon,su't winch is afrmed
T. asA VS. Ar"o"s-eacts 'he same as 1u"y
vs. Ransom d A@n"a'. :. sun between owners
oil estates on account OIL oos'fuouhs ha'ura orahS
etc. mere was Ve'u'o' anu 'uus"ien. i''
.:. u.:iN' O'' '''''
''ss 'e" 0os'' I,''o ,,.
-, ~ mo oA'e "a'
" "'. go " r ''''' '"o jug "'e", 'o'
p'''n'li io' ~o''' Inc uoo'' gave INTEREST," VINE"
! 'e'''', a"o"eo no".' nc 'oo'' ''y tie "'ow-
""Oo VI 'i''e'' i" '"o Juus"'e"' "heH the 'eioie
a',o~eo none was Irregular o"t II was case IN
which interest ought 10 nave been allowed ana the
judgment worked no INJURY 10 the defendant.
Judgment affirmed with costs.
| " Lanary' WYe Of Leblanc vs. Marcha's, to
'tse o. Union BANK The defendant as judg-
ment creditor OF Leblanc, seized certain sugars
which his wife claims as her separate property
having been separated in property, etc. Hell
judgment OF separation is charged to have been
fraudulent and collusve. The plaintiff sustained
her claim, and had judgment, which is affirmed
| 10. Kings Hairs VS.. j. e. H. Gaze. Cues
| ton OF boundary between two plantations in La
| fourche. The Judgment below was reversed, and
| Judgment rendered fixing the true boundary be-
tween the parties.
IL. AuJert, t. 10. c., ct al. vs. Su6ert, ct al.
| This is a contest among heirs about a succession
| The validity of a will is in question, and the de-
csion against it, Held, that the power of disposine
of property by Will is in derogaton of natura
right, and must be in strict conformity to law
The testator in consequence of Mpacy or insanity
was considered incapable of making will. judy.
ment for plaintiff is affirmed with costs.
II. SLIpELL, .Knor VS.. Buhler. .Su
against defendant us endorser. The Court say
the certificate of notice offered as evidence in THU
case, does not state on what day the Notary depos
lied the notice in the Post-oflice we are not au
thorized to say whether the mailing was timely
Judgment reversed, and one of non,sut rendered
10 Michel VS.. Tenney.. Notes sued on signec
by defendant, and given Gr price of certain land
purchased at Probate sale. Defence that the sal,