New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-02-23

bert. Roselius & Phillips.
Succession of David Barbour-Bright Elmore &
King. Roselius & Phillips
Succession of Hanbold-Fuer, Hewes 4 Eus-
It's. Hunt Denegre, Belden e. Fuselier.
EXCEPTION.
Fuller VS.. Pereira-Fuller i Dufour.
THIRD DISTRICT COURT. .-~
RULES.
Biering VS.. his wife-T. J. & ". II. Cooley.
MoCay, Voorhies. IT,. .....u D..
Adams Oliver & Co., VS.. A. Pino-Castera.
Fuller, Thomas.
Short vs. Lapeyrouse-Elmor q King. Ber-
mude2.
EXCEPTION. 5
Hosey vs.. Hicks-Lacey. Landreaux.
Ed. Daley vs. d. Reagan, ct al.-Field, Budd &,
Lambert. Coleman, Mann.
q. Irudof vs.. Rems Il Gernon--Mix & Robinson
Morse, Belden.
R. Kissane vs.. L. Colburn-S. s. Fish. Christy
?. Hanley VS.. VIM May-Howard Mott.
G. H. Wiet vs. VIM. Ayers-Riggs. Van Dolson
7, Dafessaux VS.. B. Casanave-Hoand. Biron.
Schneider Iuberber VS.. schooner Josephine,
ct al.-Drhammer. Samboa.
F.. Anfen Kolk VS.. schooner Haberneister-
More Sambola. .a<t.tFg
- Davidson VS., Mrs. Rder-Sambola. Ducros
Bridget Keenan, vs.. Fl. Blakesly-Haynes
Howard.
FOURTH DISTRICT COURT.
John Fl. Gibbons vs. j. Hein-Brown. GriEpt.
EXCEPTION ..s L. .&.la.
F. NJ. Fisk VS.. Fl. Otis-Cohen. Dibble Il Fisk.
J. Riviere, stevedore, VS.. steamship Matanzas--
Grivot Tatum. .u- ..r 4 ...r ....
Peae & Henderson vs. ]. H. & E. A. Blanc hard
A N. Il H. Ogden
B. F. Taylor vs.. DeGoicuria-A. Walker.
. f" CASES
N. E. Bailey VS.. Git, of New Orleans-Buchanan
Il Gilmore. Hewes. n, tFT-5# .-H 1856
Sol Weiner VS.. steamboat Moe Able ct ais
Phillips g. Leovy. Hunt Il Denegre.
Green & Elder VS.. V. Soniat ct als.-Elmore &
King. Bermudez. as ~
John b. Cunningham VS.. Cuhn Il kelly-HoWard.
Ad. Rozier l&''
J. c. Van Wincle VS.. Payne, Huntington Il Co.
Collens. Herrison & Hunton.
Wolf & Pretto VS.. National Marine and Fire In
surance Co.-Cohen. Attocha & Howe.
J. n Robb vs.. Waddy. Thompson & Co.-Ran-
dolph, Singleton Co. Hyams Jonas.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
hANpAMus.
Boil vs. City Treasurer-Grandmont and Ca
nonge. Hewes. ass,
CONTINUED CASE
Pile vs.. City of New Orleans-Ad Rozier.
Hewes.
s~-o-=-- r-s-~~y APPKALABLE CASES. - sssosa---7 7'
Gillespie, Brewer &Co.lys. w. H. stivers-Mc-
Cay. Clarke and Bayne.
NC. A. Parker VS.. H. NJ. Weber-Whitaker, Fell
lows and Mills. Roseus and Phillips. ~
Evelina B. Brohhead vs. Harvey Guid-Whita-
ker, Fellows and Mills. Derbes and Bradford.
p. H. Mousseaux VS.. Ed. Thebens ct a-Col-
lens. Whitaker, Fellows and Mills.
Richard Humble VS.. Thomas Fl. Ricks-Belden
and Fuselier. McCay.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT. II
.-.
A. Roth vs.. brig n; NJ. Ferry ct al.--Budd.
Saucier. -'y.
. CASES
I. szymanski vs.. s. Plassan-Morgan & New
Tissot rlsa.s r..,
E. Lasere vs. Rochereau & Co. ct als-Voorhies
Magne and Miles Taylor. -
E.-'Lasere vs. A. Dolphin ct als-yoorhies.
Magne and Miles Taylor.
VIM. Mlthof VS.. Byrne Il Vance--Roselius &
Philips. Briggs.
Peter Marcy VS., Merchants Mutual Insurance
Company-Buchanan u Gilmore. Durant Hor
nor and Pierce.
Peter Marcy vs.. Citizens Mutual Insurance Com.
pany--Buchanan Il Gilmore. Durant & Hornor
and Pierce. "
D. G. Thomas vs. Thompson & Barnes Morgan
& New. Huntingdon
Annette Husson vs. Chas. Watrogant-D
Dufour. g ......
SUPREME coURT-coNDENsED DECISIONS.
CORPORATIONS OF PARISHES TO PAY Apao RATA OF PARISH
LIAB1LITIEs
Thomas Permission and Joseph Lalande, testa-
mentary executors, VS.. The City of Jefferson.
Appeal from the Second District Court parish of
Jefferson. Plaintiff claims from defendant $2l34
II, represented by eight certificates issued by the
parish committee of the parish OF Jefferson which
certificates plaintiff is owner or holder. Defend
ant admits that the committee made and signed
them but denies that the city is in any way bound
to plaintiff or any other person, for their payment
The court below rendered judgment for the whole
amount, except s24 as per warrant 500, the plea Of
five years. prescription being sustained. It is
shown that DR.. Permission is the bona ttde owner
of the certificates; ; that they were regularly
drawn and authenticated by the committee,
yripnp liz l,,n l,,%, o1o DL
and setting forth the proposition thereof to be
paid by the city. And it is shown by the secre
tary of the committee that they acted under the
statute of the State of Louisiana enacted in 1856
By the second section the committee is empow-
cred to determine the pro rata of contribution of
each corporation towards defraying the expendi-
tures bearing upon the whole parish By the first
section the city OF Jefferson, in common with the
other corporations, was to be, and it must be- pre-
served, was represented in the committee, and the
action of the committee carries with it the pre-
sumption of the validity and correctness of the
certificates which justies the plaintiff in claiming
from the defendant its pro rata of contribution
1t appears, however, by reference to the ordin-
ance of the city, that all parish committee war
rants shall be submitted for approval to the
Finance Committee, and upon being signed by the
chairman the president is authorized to issue his
warrant on the treasurer for payment This re-
auirement has not been complied with nor is it
shown that the president had objected to issue his
warrant. We should, therefore, have deemed the
urged by defendant-which sets the claim itself at
issue-we think that plaintiff is entitled to relief.
The liability of defendant results from the statute,
not from the actions of the parish committee,
whose province it is to determine the pro rata Of
lower court affirmed in favor Of plaintiff. J. H.
1lsley, Judge.
MORTGAGE cREpIroRs--A MORTGAGE ERASED
NOTE BEING UNPAID
Pierre Duverges vs.. His creditors appeal from
the Second District Court of New Orleans, B.
Soude, syndic of the creditors, filed a tableau of
distribution on the 23d January, 1862. Various
oppositions were fled and our attention has been
called to the following Objectionable parts The
movable being insufficient to pay the debts privi-
legged on the movables and immoyables, the Gre
ditor whose mortgage was the least ancient was
made to contribute first to the loss The opposi-
ton is that the deficiency should be charged pro
rata on all the mortgage creditors The tableau
being also silent as to a mortgage to secure pay
ment Of note in favor of Madame de st. Romes
for sl2,sss 95, she opposed the tableau, alleging
that the note was wholly due her. that the syndic
failed to put her on the tableau as being entitled
by preference to the proceeds and, that il any en-