New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1859-12-21

| New Orleans Opinion Of the Court by Judge
| Land. Judgment affirmed with damages for 1.-Two
| lous appeal.
j. j. BaHongue, APPELLANT, vs.. City Of Ne.e Or.
| leans. aDpeleeAppea from Fourth District Court
/ Of New Orleans Opinion Of the Court BY Judge
! VOORHEES,. The proof is satisfactory as to the &C.
4 currence Of the riot, in which several policemen
took conspicuous part but the evidence as to the
! oua,stu,a of damages is meager, we have not been
! able to find anything in the record that would
justify US in placing higher estimate than the one
adopted by the able Judge Of the District Court.
| Judgment affirmed.
| Gu Of Ne,c Orleans, appellee, VS.. Fdssn,dn 6
Tancy, appelldnts-From Sixth District Court of
New Orleans Opinion Of the Court by Judge
Land-A suit for taxes. The material question is,
whether the revenues deriyable from a cotton
press are income within the meaning of the act of
1856 to authorize the corporation of the city of
New Orleans to tax real and personal property.
We are Of opinion that it was not the intention of
the Legislature to tax real property under the
term of land, slaves, ETC., and then to tax under
the term of income the profits realized by such
land slaves, ETC.. twould be double taxation-frst
TO tax property to the extent allowed by law, and
then to tax the profits derived from such property.
The tax of $500 on income, but which is in reality
tax on the revenues of the cotton press cannot be
allowed. Judgment reversed
j. A. Williamson and James CtttoDa, dfpeaees,
vs. G.. u, Dolson and Son, appellants From the
Fourth District Court of New 0rlcans-Opinion of
the Court by Judge Land. Judgment reversed. ,
W. A. Hanney q Co., appellants, vs.. II; u.
Orleans Opinion of the Court by Judge VOORHEES,.
| Judgment reversed and case remanded, Chief JUS
| tice Merrick dissenting.
Hugss, HyRested q Co., dppellees, VS.. Klingende1
| Brotie,s, Vim. M1re for the Bank Of liverpool,
inte,renoys appellants Fourth District Court Of
! New Orleans Opinion of the Court by Chief JUS
4 tice Merrick. This case was before us in January
last, the question Of the right of the interyenor
/ to bond the property attached. In the present
case, the Bank Of liverpool yendee and trustee,
claims the legal title of the ship. The petition of
intervention was dismissed If it be admitted that
the intervenor has such rights upon the ship by the
English law as would protect them against subse-
quent purchasers and creditors and the effects of
bankruptcy, why are not those rights respected in
Louisiana particularly all parties to this contro
versy have their domicil in England? Is it not sur
prsing that the question is repeated, and that the
Courts are again and again called upon to answer
it? The comfy of nations extends only to enforce
obligations under those provisions of the laws of
other countries which are analogous to the State
where the litigation arises The instrument offered
in evidence has no analogy to any mode known to
our law Of affecting personal property for the
curity Of debts 1t purports to sell to one man. to
protect the rights Of third person: and yet the
vendor is to retain possession. The contracts not
ale, nor pledge; for there is no delivery which
our law deems essential to perfect either contracts
as to third PERSONS As our law would not enforce
similar contract between our own citizens, if
made here, it will not enforce it to defeat rights
already acquired by attachment under our laws.
1 Judgment amended and affirmed.
Tie State of Louisiana, appellee, vs.. Joseph
| lNdtae'anae, appellant. Fourth District Court OF
St. John the Baptiste. Opinion by Judge VOORHEES,.
4 Judgment affirmed.
Joseph Cousant, appellant, VS.. N. DeJong, APP
peHee Third District Court of New Orleans: =
Opinion of the Court by Judge Buchanan. Judg-
| ment reversed and case remanded.
John B,Osra, appellee, VS.. Bark Laura iSno,o,
Captain and o,rae1s, dppeldnts.-Si District
Court of New Orleans.-Opnion of the Court by
Judge Cole. The plaintiff alleges that he entered
s.,kn
lime on board the bark Laura Snow for a specified
sum and in designated time. That the defend
ants, by their own action annulled the contract;
wherefore he sues on a q,tdnftlpl GernI. An eX-
ception was filed by the defendants to the suit, on
the ground that it is on a q'ta,fu,n aae,ua, when
by its own allegations it appears that there was a
written contract. The exception was overruled,
and the plaintiff was permitted to prove the allie
cations Of his petition. There was judgment for
plaintiff, and the defendants have appealed. In
this Court the defendants rely upon their exception
for reversal of the judgment. In our opinion the
exception was properly overrned. As plaintiff
considered the contract to have been violated and
cancelled by the conduct of defendants, he was
entitled to incur the risk of establishing this upon
the trial, and to sue upon Qetanttnn me,'uH. He
was not obliged to sue upon contract virtually
annulled by defendants, unless he had wished to
do. judgment affirmed.
By Merrck, c. j., in the same case-I do not
think party who has entered into written con-
tract may repudiate the same on the pretence of
violation OF the contract by the opposite party.
The very object of a contract is to make special
law between the parties by which to adjust their
rights in the event OF refusal to comply vio-
lation of the. contract by either.
When parties have entered into a contract, and
either party insists upon the same, it cannot be
disregarded. The testimony Gnclud-
ing the contract has all been received without
objection. 1t shows, as think, that plaintiff is
entitled to recover the amount awarded by the
lower court on account of the breach of the con-
tract by defendants, and concur in the decree on
this ground.
Land, Justice, concurs in this opinion.