New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-02-22

of lower court reversed, and case remanded ac-
cording to law. 2. Labauye, Judge.
City Of New Orleans VS.. Horace Biakesly. Thi
is suit for taxes. The defendant has not pointe,
out any error in the judgment. We can find nj
legal cause for appeal Judgment affirmed ant
plaintiff to recover s35 damages. R. X. Howell
Judge.
City of New Orleans appellee, VS.. e. Corde
vole, appellant. Appeal from the Fifth Dstrici
Court of New Orleans. This case presents the
same peadings and defects as in the case of plain
tiff We. Francois Lacroix. Case remanded to be
proceeded in according to law. u Labauye,
judge.
ALL PARTIES INTERESTED JUDGMENT
MADE PARTIES TO AN APPEAL
Joseph Laande vs.. Conrad McRae, Brady. Cor
man d Go. ct ais, third opponents and appellants.
Appeal from Ninth Judicial District Court, parish
of Point Coupee. A motion is made to dismiss
the appeal on the ground that all parties in inter-
est are not parties to the pPea The
was sold at sherif's sale for sl20,0G0 This judg-
ment was distributed follows First, the clerks
costs; second, sherfs costs; third, to Mrs. NJ. G.
Porche; fifth, Mrs. N. G. Stirling as assignee Of j.
Laande. The residue of the fund was divided
equally and distributed among individual creditors
Of r. W. McRae and G. F. Mcfsae, out of r. W.
seventh, to J. T. Motlow. Next" says the de.
cree, is the claim of Brady, German & Co., bear
ing upon the interest Of R. W. McRae, but as that
fund Is already exhausted, and there only remains
tHc Hall DelouSulS 10 ". hlCltde, 90 nOL,' pro-
ceeds the judge, consider it necessary to go into
the question of extnguishment of said claims"
He therefore dismissed the opposition, and distri-
buted q F. McRae's portion: as follows Eighth,
to McElroy & Bradford. Ninth, to Thos. Clay
comb. Tenth, the balance to G. F. McRae. Of
these Mrs. Stirling, Lallande, Hall, Rodd g. Put
nam. McElroy & Bradford, and c. F. McRae are
cited as appellees. The clerk sheriff Porche, Glad
den d. Seixas, Motlow l. Claycomb have not been
made parties to the appeal. GLADDEN. & Seixas,
and Motow, individual creditors of R. W. McRae
for sl2 400 49, are not cited as averred, because
their rank is not contested. The appellants claim
ing to be creditors of r. w. McRae, contend that
their Judicial mortgage upon the fund distributed
is superior in rank to the claim of Mrs. Stirling
(hfth) on the account for s46,699 So allowed
their position is, that the amount must be carved
out of the sum allowed to Mrs Stirling As they
wish only to correct the Judgment as between
themselves and Mrs. Stirling, if she desires
a change as to others, she should have
appealed as against them, and cite the
where it was held that this court is only seized of
jurisdiction to amend the judgment as between
appellant and appellee, and not as betweenappel-
lees. This, in our opinion, is an incorrect appli-
cation of the doctrine of that case. The reverse
was held in the case of Hewson VS.. Cresswick-lO
A., 232-where it was decided that all parties in
terested in maintaining judgment must be
brought before the court by appellant. See, also,
II R., $50, CO.'S, A. 72-l2 A. 775-l5, A. 496
That the parties omitted, however, an interest in
maintaining the judgment is manifest. The grant
ing OF appellants appeal might disturb the whole
order OF distribution. and result in cutting off some
in part or entirely. We cannot recognize in ap-
pellants the right to single out or more of the
successful contestants for partnership fund and
omit the others, as the litigation must be terminated
in single trial, provoked by their action alone.
Ordered that appeal be dismissed at cost of appel
lants r. X. Howell, Judge.