New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-02-14
yu o,,sus nala Crescent Hsautsday arutna 5y A. 1886

makes proof of what is contained IN the original
Defendant further contends that the order was I'M
properly granted, because the mortgage was gwen
tosecnre payment mote, 'ss 'sronted
and It should have been provided for. Ihat note
was due before the order was grah vs. ms
question Of practice is settled nioase OF Armor!
Executive Va. Downes I'd annual 245. Julg- |
ment affirmed in favor ofplaintih.
Succession of Thomas o. Langhlin, appeal from
Second District Court ofNew Orleans. Phe cura-
tor fthis succession flleda tabeau distributing
the proceeds of sale of two parcels OF real estate
as the only property of the succession, and not
being sufficient to pay the special mortgages and
the law charges, taxes, etc., he apportioned the
payment q ths latter gropoMr99naily between ne
creditors, appealed from q Judgment disnssing
his opposition to and homologating said account.
He holds that, as the mortgage under which Mrs.
Bannster claims, is subsequent 70 That held by
McClosky, the property subject to it, must first
contribute to the payment of the general priv
ileges, before the property subsequentto appel
lant's mortgage can be required to contribute.
of the curator to collect the debts, shown by the
inventory to be due the estate. twas his duty
to make some effort to do so. His personal liab
ity with his surety, will depend on the showing
Of opposition of appellant Is to the correctness Of
all the charges which appear to be large in pro-
portion to the value of the estate and the mortuary
proceedings. yAshthe court has no evidence to
case be remanded to enable the parties respect
lively to contest and establish the charges
opposed Courts should be careful to protect sue
cessions from waste and require law OFFICERS to
conform their charges to the legal standard. Judg-
ment of lower court reversed and case rernanded.
| Widow II. NJ. Bienvenu vs. Alfred Vienne-Ap-
4 peal from Sixth District Court of New Orleans
Defendant, who was father and tutor of some of
plaintiffs grandchildren, as tutor accepted her
proposal to make partition of proceeds of sale of
community property acquired by her and her de-
| ceased husband, on condition Of being paid acer-
tain amount monthly as an annuity. In the act of
partition the annuity was left out. He subsequent
| fy refused to signs contract STIMULATING the pay
meut of the annuity, and suit was brought to COM
pei him to pay the portion which it is alleged that
he owed.' Judgment was given against him. He
tive capacity, and it is not shown that he agreed
to be personally responsible for any part of the
annuity. Judgment of lower Court reversed in
| favor of defendant. -.
from Second District Court of New Orleans This
is redhibitory action to annul the sale of female
slave, bought by plaintiff from defendant on the
l 2sth March, 1861, for $500. The District Court
4 ed The slave had an favourable disease pthisis,
at the time of sale. Judgment affirmed.
William Mansel vs., Q. 3. Payne; Appeal from n,
Second District Court of New Orleans. Plaintiff
claims s2500 as damages, being the difference be-
| tween what defendant charged, and actually paid
for certain shares purchased by him for plaintiff,
of the Southern Steamship Company. He, also,
claims $1,000 damages sustained in the sale by him
self to defendant in August, 1858, There We
Judgment for defendant; plaintiff appealed. This
suit was instituted in January, 1861, two years
and five months after the last transaction between
the parties At what time plaintiff became aware
of the facts which he says operated fraud upon
him, does not appear. The court holds that his
possession of thea account rendered by the defen
dant, for so long time without objection; hii
acceptance of the certificate of stock in 1857 will
d knowledge of the losses of the company and de
probation Of the stock, and his resale to defer
dant in 1858 of the same stock, amount to an ac
quiesence in the acts of defendant, and he is now
stopped from claiming damages. Judgment o
lower court in favor of defendant affirmed.