New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1859-12-14


II shc execution ii Tile draft, and
III of want of consideration for the same.
Nm, M 4 il we'll settaed that the article 2l00 81 the
Code declaring that Judicial admissions cannot pc
divided, does not nrpy 70 admssions N pleaaisng
the fraud and error, in the consideration OF the
contract, was on defendant; Failing TO prove
which, he is bound, as alleged in the petition.
i Defendants and appellants ailege as error that
the District Court did not pass upon defendants
unconventional demand, and we are asked TO re-
| mand the cause. The District Court did not err.
The defendant cannot be permitted to take adyan-
tage of his own neglect to prosecute his reconven-
ton III order to delay the plaintiff in the recovery
81 I'LL debt. Indeed the Judgment in favor Of
plaintiff substantially dsposes of the cross.acton
THAT defence having failed. there is amend Of the
cross-action. Judgment affirmed.
Board of Har5or Masters, dpoeNces, vs. Shtp
Charles Morgan, appellant. Appeal from the
Third Justices Court Of New 0reans..Judge B'l-
chanan delivered the opinion Of the oour e. i ~
Constitution of the United States, Art. |, see ~
prohibits individual States leyying " guy q VIZ;
nage.- The question in this case was the eos H.
nationality Of the law Of Louisiana leyyhg y Wy
of two cents per tun for the use OF harpor masters
n ,vas eci,1ed to be constitutional, and Judgment
\ 3af Iower Cont affirmed. Jadge Buchanan took
A no part in this decision. , Y nS.,.,,
o .s From First District Court OF New Or
iaans Opnion Of the Court by Chief Justice Mef-
\. ;ckThe accused in this case has been convicted
/ If murder, and sentenced to the pemtentiary ior
u ife and presents this appeal. We have not peen
Il favored with brief or argument from his counsel,
ii ana on examining the record, we discover neither
lin Of exceptions nor assignment of error. Neither
we discover anything erroneous ,. On an eA''h
jas. Carrie, appellant, vs.. Edtra'd u Dt'ett
appelee- From Fifth District Court Of New Or
/ leans-O opinion Of the Court by Judge Buchanan
4 This case was question OF TACT, Jnasnehs al
i firnled.
T1lan,o,a & Co., for atse of Salie, appellant, vs.
4 Home Mutual and Citizens Insurance Company
appeHees-From Sixth District Court Of New Or
lileans-O Opinion Of the Court by Judge Buchanan
4 Judgment of the District Court reversed and case
Il renianded.
i Geo D. Gordon, Er., ETC., appellee, vs.. y. w
Zacha,ie, dppeUaaat-Ftrom sixth District eonr5 q
i New Orleans - Opinion of the Court by Judge
a Land. Judgment amended and affirmed
Y Cay Of Ne,r Orleans, appellee. vs.. Pierre ID.
4 Poutz appellant the Fifth District Court OF
4 New Orleans Opinion of the Court by Judge
4 VOORHEES, Suit for taxes. Defendant contends
the act of 1850 is unconstitutional, because retro
spectiye. 1t has been decided sit is not an efpos
tdco law, it has relation to crimes and pen
alties Article s of the Civil Code, which is the
creature Of the Legislature, cannot control the
, power that created it. However Tepugnant to
logic and sound policy retrospective laws may be
they do no violence the constitution unless they
I divest vested rights or impair the obhSatoh OF
I contracts Judgment affirmed.
Succession Of Matthias Wiz vs.. Joseph itdase',
. sy,,tlic, appellant, Estate Of b. c. E2ioh hodolph
2
n second District Court Of New Orleans Opinion o.
\ the Court by Judge Buchanali.Appeal not taker
$ in time, and bond insufficient. Appeal of May
2 1859, dismissed.
1 Ell ais, opponents and appellants, VS.. II. L. Hagls
g executor ct ais, appeEees-From the Second Dis
: trict Court of New Orleans-Opinion OF the Cour
= by Judge Merrick.-Decrecd that the Judgment 9
e tie Lower Court be amended by reducing upon Thu
# tableau the amount allowed Geo. L. Bright, ESD a
It Attorneys fees, from $500 to $780, and that til
IS right be reserved the said Hughs Yallette q Co. Il
u claim in any future proceeding all other items
&c their account except slsl 10 allowed them, an
that, so amended, the Judgment be affirmed.
le Emma Corner, appellant, vs. Jas b. Zuntz, {
'e ais, dppeees the Fourth District Court
IS New Orleans-Opinion of the Court by Judg
e VOORHEES,. Judgment of District Court reverse
z and case remanded.
N Thos Ridge, appellant, vs.. Cl.as E. AAe', ct al
J, dppellees-From the Sixth District Court O. Ne'
y Orleans-Opinion of the Court by Judge Cole
. Suit to annul a Judgment Judgment decreed nu
sr and perpetual Injunction awarded
9 city Of Ne,c Orleans, drl,el.ee vs.. Samuel Loci
u dppelstlt-From the Fifth District Court OF Mex
! Orleans Opinion Of the Court by Judge Voorhie'
g Judgment Of the District Court affirmed:
e q. 4. SANFORD, appellee, W. Eugene Waggan,d'
). Tutor of The minor adelaide Julia Cdnabot, appe
e lant.-Appeal from the Second District Court {
e New Orleans.-O Opinion of the Court by Jude
VOORHEES,. Judgment of the District Court affirmed
), @. Yale, Jr. d Co., appeuees. vs.. G. S. Hhanor
aReuee MeA sys " a = &c s gasees
e appe0ees. -Appeal from the Fifth District Court
\ New Orleans. -Opinon Of the Court by Jude
/ Buchanan Judgment affirmed.
9 Giiy Of Neac Orleans, appellee, vs.. Il. NJ. ftsi
e dppeNant.-Appeal from the Third District Court
Y New Orleans Opinion of the Court by JudG
Land. Judgment affirmed.
I Gaspard James, curator, appellant vs.. Mel
= more, Rdyb,01a q Co. ct as, appetdiats--Appe
J, from the Sixth District Court of New Orlean
. Opinion of the Court by Judge Buchanan. JUDD
ment affirmed.
:, Jas. L. iS,ea,, appellee, vs. George Moore, a
h pe0ara.-Appeal frem the Fifth District Court
= New Orleans. Opinion Of the Court by Juds
. Land. This is an hypothecary action, in whie
I the plaintiff alleges that on the 18th day
January, 1856, he obtained Judgment against OF
$ J. H. Cruise, for the of s93l 80, and that on tt
! I'd day of February, 1856, he caused his judgme
u to be duly recorded in the mortgage office of Ne
9 Orleans. That on the 2tth day Of July, 1854, Il
J. and sold unto George Moore, the defendant, Il
undivided half of four certain lots of ground sit
8 ated in the Second District of said city, al
\ that though said act of sale was executed on Il
g oath of July, 1854, the same was never register
g in the office of the Register of Conyeyances in sa
n city till the 4th Of December 1856, and more th'
II ten months after the register of his judgmen
and that BY whereof ne mas nd taa ta u
. now stands hypothecated in law for the PAYNE
e of his judgment.
= The defendants answer admits the purchase
alleged contains special averment that at u
n time the plaintiff pretends to have acquired t
g mortgage and lien, he was well aware that the q
+ PENDANT had become the bona tide purchaser a
2 owner of said property for valuable consider
ton and that it in bad faith on the part Of
y plaintiff to attempt to exercise the lien claimed
I. Ills petition The answer contains further ave
. ment that the nonregistry Of the act Of sale "
IN consequence of the neglect of duty Of the nota
e. before whom it was passed, and calls in warrar
q the notary and the surety on his bond, and pra
, for Judgment over against them IN solido in t
II event Of the plaintiffs obtaining Judgment agail
~ him.
!: Upon the issues thus presented by the pleading
" there was Judgment in favor of the plaintiff,
ID Judgment dsmissing the call in warranty.
re 1t was decreed in this Court that the judgme
le as between plaintiff and defendant be reverse
i. and it is now decreed that there be Judgment
10 favor of defendant with costs in both Courts. A
D it is further decreed that the Judgment dismissi
u the call in warranty be affirmed with costs.
=. Chief Justice Merrek delivered dissent
y opinion. ,..,
re Octare Monteg,tet, appellee, vs.. j. B. u. Cal
ne tutor, etc, Eugene Hdggandn tutor, appellants
e. From the Second District Court of New Orleans
y. Opinion of the Court by Judge VOORHEES,. Jul
. ment of the District Court affirmed.