New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-02-06

John While vs.. S. Gumble: Whitaker, Fellows
& Mills. Lacey. /
Saml Shookys. Theo. Villa Mccarthy and Muir
tagh Ad. Rozer.
Armand MERCER vs. Ben. l.. Harrison; Dufour,
j. z. Horror.
Vicente Forne VS.. A. ?. Valencia: SambOla &
Ducros, G. f. Schmidt.
J. Bourdee vs. j. Condor; Grandmont & Ca
nonge, Buchanan& Gilmore.
Newton Richards VS.. Robert Little; J. II. New,
defendant.
Lehman, Schwartz & Co. vs. Marx Israel; Dali
sbemer Il Buck, j. l.. Tissot
Laurent Dumestre Marks Shomberg; Tissot,
defendant.
James Cooper VS.. Robert Davidson; Belden &
Fuselier, Lacey.
| CONDENSED DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
LOUISIANA.
| Geo. Klock, appellee, VIM B. Berthoud.
Rehearng refused.
| Union Bank of Tennessee VS.. Bullet, Miller &
Co. Rehearing refused.
Marie Heyob, wife of Joseph Bourdette, VS. Her
| Husband Rehearing refused.
Geo. Hotzman, appellee, VS.. Laurent Mtlaudon,
| appellant Rehearing refused.
4 Stauislaus Passan August Titus. Rehearing
granted on all questions involved in the case.
r. G. Harper VS.. The President, Directors and
Company Of the Commercial Railroad Bank of
| Vicksburg. Rehearng asked for on behalf of
plaintiff. Granted.
The State of Louisiana VS.. FREDERICK Abellanado.
Appeal from the First District Court of New Or
leans. The defendant was indicted for murder
and convicted. Judgment affirmed.
x Lambert vs.. c. NJ. Conrad. Appeal from
Sixth District Court of New Orleans. Plaintiff, on
the It'll of January, 1864 obtained an order for the
seizure and sale of certain property of defendant,
whilst he was residing in Virginia. Defendant ap'
pealed Motion to dismiss the appeal refused.
| H, B. Eggleston VS.. succession of John Hagan
| w. j. Mclean, testamentary executor. Appeal
from Second District Court of New Orleans. This
is suit by plaintiff for services rendered as attor-
ney. Amount allowed by District Judge was not
excessive. Judgment affirmed, with costs and
S10O DAMAGES frivolous aDDeal,
Warneken & Co. vs. A. Marehand. Appeal from
the Sixth District Court of New Orleans. The
plaintiff sued defendant alleging that H. L. Hanni-
winkel had stolen from them twenty consolidated
city bonds of $1,000 EACH and transferred the same
to defendant, that they owned eight of these
bonds, and the other twelve were left with them
for safe keeping. They prayed for Judgment con-
demnng defendant to deliver up the bond or pay
the value, $1,000. Defendant answered by gen
eral denial. tIanniwinkel pledged the bonds
to defendant in borrowing money from him, part
of which was received by plaintiffs without know
ing from whom obtained. Plaintiffs ratified the
pledge of Hanniwinkel with defendant. Judgment
of District Court in favor of defendant affirmed
Watson Crowell vs.. Good Intent Towboat Com
pany; Bank of America, warrantor. Appeal from
the Sixth District Court Of New Orleans. The
company declared, in July, 81, dividend of per
cent. in January, 1862, Ss per cent; in March,
dooa ~ per cent N APRIL 1872 6o per cent
alleged that he was the holder and owner of thirty
FIVE shares of the capital stock of the company
that the dividends stated above had been made
from the profits of the company; that the amount
coming to him was S35 70, and that the company
refused to pay him. He prayed for judgment for
the amount with interest. The company averred
that the first dividend had been paid, and that the
last named had been declared on Confederate
money; that the Confederate States had seized
the boats, ETC., and that it had been compelled to
take that paper or nothing. Checks were drawn
on the Bank of America for the amount due plain
tiff payable to his own order, and that the bank
had paid the checks thus drawn to the acting re-
Ceiyer of the Confederate government, who had
seized the stock of plaintiff Success alone of the
Confederate States in their struggle for self-gov-
ernment, could have given effect to their obliga,
tons, or made them valid or valuable in law.
They worthless, in the eye of the law as
the paper on which they were written. Plaintiff
cannot recover money for worthless paper. There
of per cent. declared in July, 1861. Judgment
of District Court reversed, and it is deCreed that
plaintiff recover of defendant the sum of SIS,
with per cent. interest thereon from the I'd day
of July, 1861 till paid, and the cost of suit in the
, lower court; cost of appeal to be borne by plain
tiff, and that there be judgment for the bank on
, the call in warranty.
! This case was tried before jury in the lower
: court and verdict rendered for the plaintiff
: against the company for $780, ard the jury also
found for the company and against the bank for
, the same sum. Judgment in accordance
Herewith was rendered on the llth Of January
| 1865.
The plaintiff resided in Massachusetts, when suit
: was instituted.