New Orleans daily crescent., 1866-01-31
Ihe courts.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.

+.
Sullivan, Randolph & Budd VS.. F. Fabre; A
1 Rozier, G. l.. Bright.
| Stein Chittenden VS.. ]. D. Damaron and F.
Fabre; j. A. Rozier, G. L. Bright:
| Felade l.. Carpentien VS.. l.. E. Banchin; Martin
| Blache, L. Castera.
Qaul Lafrone vs. Martin Gourdain H. Train
Charvet H. r. Grandmont
Francois Lacrosse vs. F. W. Cooler; H. Train
| Roseus and Reynolds.
/ JIM David vs.. A. Cassan; L. Castera Tissot
| Amazon Levoux vs. Samuel Jamison; P. Fl.
Morgan, Durant and Hornor.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT.
The State vs. Henry Cutler.
The State vs. William Donaldson.
The State vs. Richard Jorden.
The State w. John Flood.
| The State vs.. John Lane.
The State VS.. George Jones, colored.
The State vs. Lucy Daniels.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT.
i R. J. Kerr vs.. Shannon; H. B. Eggeston, Whit
aker, Fellows & Mills.
G. Raderich VS.. succession of Fabio H. Train j.
NJ. Gurley. w
Succession of James B. Sherwood, on petition
for sale: J. G. Cuvlllier, James Fuller
Succession of John Strand, Jr., on peuuon OF
administration for account; Duraht u horhor, o.
!, s. Fish.
Ogden, Clarke Bayne, whitaker FELLOWS q
THIRD DISTRICT COURT.
NJ. BONN VS.. DIR. s. Elliott samboa, Ducros,
Dugue and Bright
I Mrs. Goetelman VS.. Frelinghouse; P. s. Biron
4 LEROY g. Dieter vs.. Loeb & Bros; Lacey, NAPLES
and Kellogg, Dillingham; and Bower
| j. H. Looming VS.. P. Monge ct al; G. Redmond
| Dirhamer, G.. Schmidt.
| Mrs. Ventiss vs. W. R. Hodges G. S. Lacey,
Buchanan & Gilmore.
R. S. Kerr, executor, Vs. J. W. Wilder; Eggles-
| ton, Hunton, G. L. Bright, Whitaker, Fellows and
Mills.
Angel Delrue vs. her husband; A saucier, L. L.
Conrad.
FOURTH DISTRICT COURT.
J. Keizer VS.. S. & j. Karson; E. Heistand,
Hunt g. Denegre.
j. NJ Lee VS.. o. S. Annuity Insurance Company
of Philadelphia; Mott & Frazer, Bonford & Sin
gleton, Race & Foster.
j. w. Burbridge & Co. VS.. G. L. kouns ct al.
Miller & Leovy, Durant Il Hornor, Singleton and
Hardie.
Dan Van Allen VS.. JAS Ryback John S. Tully,
Roselius & Phillips, Hardie.
Hammond & Co. VS.. N. o., J. & G. N. R. R. Co.. !;
R. & H. Mari, G. NJ. Shackelford, Pres't.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
Edgar ]. Wood vs.. J. H. Elmer & Co.; Miles
Taylor, Roselius & Philips
Jules c. Saliba vs. Charles S. Saliba ct al; J. E.
Loresche, Sambola & Ducros, R. H. Grandmont
Augustine Wilson vs. George H. Scott and W.
c. Cutler; Thos. S. Mccoy, r. X. Cutler.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT.
A. P. Pettis vs.. P. Conrey; P. H. Morgan, Whita-
Same VS.. W. W. Wilson, same attorneys.
G. Ghinn VS.. Herwig Brothers; Thos. S. Hughes,
J. l.. Tissot
Carondelet Canal and Banking Company vs..
commissioners first draining district; c. Dufour,
C. Roselius.
Pike, Lapeyre Il Bro. VS.. ]. B. Percy; P. H.
Morgan & New, Van Dolson.
| SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA CONDENSED DE-
| CIsIoNs.
Jean Pierre Guenivet VS.. Frank Perrett; Fourth
District Court. motion was made to dismiss the
appeal on the ground that the plaintiff had acqui
esced in the judgment by executing the same vo-
UNFAIRLY in having taken the $2647 08 in bank
notes of the Bank Of Louisiana, the notes to be
held subject to the decision of the court in this
case. This cannot be considered payment in salts
| faction. Ordered that the motion to dismiss be
| overrued, with costs to the mover.
| ]. Strauss VS.. j. Bloom & Co.; Sixth District
Court. This is an action to recover from the de-
PENDANTS the amount of a draft left with and col
lected by them for defendant The draft was paid
in Confederate notes, and the defendants using it
as money became debtors to the plaintiff and must
pay in currency, unless they show that the plain
tiff ratified their acts. The received what they
used as money, and they must pay what is money.
Confederate notes are not money. Ordered that
the judgment of the lower court be affirmed with
costs.
Ellery Wendt & Hoffbouer, appellees, VS.. ]. D.
Dameron Co., appellant; Sixth District Court of
New Orleans. The ground on which the defen-
dants claimed revsal of the judgment of the
III.
The judgment of the lower court is set aside and
the case remanded to the lower court for service
OF process on cameron, and for other further pro-
ceedings according to law.
NJ. NJ & s. G. Kennedy, appellees vs. Celeste
Marmu, appellants appeal from the Sixth District
Court of New Orleans. Plaintiff sued to recover
S466 66 for rent of premises, and obtained judg-
ment. The case is an appeal for more delay, III
an answer claiming damages for frivolous ap-
peal were filled according to law, we would will
lingly comply with it. Judgment of the court be-
low affirmed with costs
Mahon VS.. steamboat Olive Branch captain and
owners. Plaintiff claims from defendant 1927
being damages to forty barrels of apples shipped
in good order at st. Louis, to be delivered in good
order in New Orleans, unavoidable dangers Of the
river and fire only excepted. There was unusual
delay for which the defendants have failed salts
factory to account. They chartered another boat
which got aground as the Olive Branch had been
The lower court gave Judgment in favor of defend
ants, as the apples contained within themselves
the principle of decay. Ordered that the iudg-
ment of the lower Court be reversed and the case
remanded for new trial. Defendants to pay costs
of appeal.
Bernard Miller VS.. Conrad Shredder; Stanislaus
Weber, intervenor. This suit was instituted to
obtain payment of note for 1924. Defendant
answered that he was satisfied plaintiff was not
the owner of the note. mtervenor failed to es-
tablish his right to the note. Ordered that the
Judgment OF the lower court be reversed, and that
there be judgment dismissng the intervention,
and that plaintiff Miller recover of defendant Con
rad Shredder the amount with interest.
Succession of Maria Moore VS.. Chas Ross |
This is rule taken by the administrator of the |
succession against Charles Ross to deliver certain
movable property, alleged to belong to said sue
cession. The summary proceedings taken herein |
are justified by law and common sense Judg- |
ment of the court below affirmed, requiring the |
delivery of the property.
Joseph Boyle VS.. B. Avegno and A. Lanata ap-
peal from the Second District Court of New Or
leans. The plaintiff claims from A. Avegno, draw
er, and A. Lanata (testamentary executor of JOS
Lanata, deceased), indorser of promisory note
for S4500. The answer of Lanata is general de-
nial. The appeal seems to have been taken for
delay merely. Ordered that the Judgment an.
pealed from be affirmed with 1926 damages and
costs of appeal.
VIM. E. Murphy VS.. ]. M. Denman. The actual
controversy in this is upon the plaintiffs right
to recover from defendant specific thing being
1925 in Confederate notes. The Court cannot re,
,ognize any legal proprietary right in Confeder
tie notes. The Court sets aside the original iudg-
nent rendered in the case, and orders that there
,e judgment in favor of the defendant as in cases
# nonsuit Costs to be paid to the plaintiff in both
ases.
The London Pail MarGazette says that in case
ecently tried before the Judge Ordinary, a wife
ave evidence that her husband put her into an
'mnibus on the 18th of October, 1868, saying that
le should be home to dinner" and that he has
lot yet returned. This is like a bit of dialogue
nat occurs in novel now in course of publication