New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-02-21
Bridget Cavanaugh VS.. Richard Mooney-Flei
& Shackelford. Lie Breton.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.


| ~ RULES.
Lacroix vs.. Lytle ct als.-Budd u Lampers' =
| Mcconnell. Hunt Denegre. pace
Claffin, Mellen 4. Co. vs.. Moore ~ eehh
Foster and e. 7. Merrick. ,,. ~ en-
Meeker & MardhOf VS.. 4 >. Fo"eh "
4 Race. Foster and e., I, MerrickS q
$500 cos4isurp CASE. 5.s .,. : /
African NJ E. Church vs., n: R e. eet y as
blanchard, Durant 4 Hornor. 'an - 5d4 }g
! III ~ = Dudley ,udi { Nelson Coleman.
/. ''a1 ~ .4.rrrEALABLz CASES w. ~
q 4. l.. Gaines VS.. John :. Mn3nn
Stuart 4 walker, Harrison Y hu n.;t;o Morel
Z f. Martha Campbell vs. elas s5Fe GIoa
!, | Cutler Il Thomas. tA1 $50 q a-2
I $3.50 -'11N,.s mi sIxrH DISTRICT COURT.
{ s:.,,, p,ock vs. Barelli ct ALL. @ Miller.
R R,rv% Garner Is Harrison vs. Merrlman et al
hSl hss s. altsr vs. chas Bright Buchanan
al l'u '1.''S CONTINUED CASES SsEj y
u srngartba B. Nixonset al. vs.. E. Houillon-Mls,
Bu q P aa IS. P. ConroyM 4 New.
" A 2. Pettis VS.. W. ". Wilson Morgan y New
1 Whitaker. M 5q is8ast 7.t b 81 a% 775
4 H. kellogg et al. VS.. Steamboat y. D. Hlne ct.
EalGBsan. Hinton i Miller. ia !. ,ilI
I'I H. McGuinn VS.. City of New Orleans NTH
| kerr Fellows & Mills. Hewes. ID y8d f4s - 4,
Il Griffen g. Porch vs. Schooner Rlta et. aii-Whlt-
4 akef Fellows & Mills. .Budd &tLambert. 5000
KittredgeaS Bros, VS.. Leblanc ct. al.-Dufant y
/ Horn0r. Castera. VI IA ny Hs& .5is ~ sst ia y.
simon Block vs.. Bower, Garner \ Harrison
Whitaker, Fellows Il Mills and Durant " hornor-i
4 Bright. AID. Rozer, Sheldon. h aaii 49,,
Il Massey vs., II. Berthel--Du d Hornor. Bu
chanan b Gilmore. fiss s8t ar Ef3tta NJ 'As
SUPREME oouRr-c CONDENSED DECISIONS.
4 y Est CASE or TITLE 70 CERTAIN LANDS ~ q
4 J. B, McClendon, appellee, vs.. J: D. kemp.
sheriff Ct ais appeantAppeal IRON n Touti
II claims to be the owner of certain lands purchased
BY him at sheriffs sale made Sd November 1850,
i by virtue Of writ of ier facias issued from the
Fifth District Court of New Orleans, in the suit OF
Il Hugh McDooling vs.. the New Orleans and Nash
Il vile Railroad Company; that outstanding
I Hugh Med oling has Illegally caused pretended
writ of eri facias to be issued from the said court
directed to the sheriff Of the parish Of St Helena,
!. who has wrongfully seized upon and will sell on
the Sd May 1856, the said lands belonging TO plain
tiff to his great injury, unless restrained BY inunc-
ton. Mandate Of Injunction was graatea e,aa a.
II Previous to filing his answer, Defendant MED an
II exception to the effect that the matter had been
4 submitted to Alfred Hennen, who decided against
Il the plaintiff. This judgment was submitted as
peremptory excepaon as @nen tbs epree
], nent to submit was not IN writing, as
i required by articles 506s-7, Louisiana Code.
Defendants then answered that the titles set forth
that the sheriff had no legal f. ia. when he sold
the lands that the writ, originally illegal, had ex
, pred; that the illegal sale was made without
Compliance with any. Of the legal 1ormai n1
4 that there we're no bidders at the time and place
Of selling the same; that the property was worth
$40 GOO that the pretended bid Of plaintiff OF s2s
/ was no bid at ALL; that there was combination
others by a ,s to 0esan ' LEGAL fair
: upright, and that the whole proceedings are null
and void. t..sl ..,53#55t . q
i The plaintiff moved to strike out that portonso
: defendants answer seeking to attack collateral.
the alleged utilities of the sale, upon the groun
Il that they could not be attacked without making a.
IA the parties to the transaction parties TO the SUIT
that it was only by direct action Of nuty that
4 uarities can be inquired into The Court overruie
q the motion and decided that it would more prop
n erIy come up whenever the defendant should offe
r testimony in support Of the ayerments IN ms a.
swer. subsequently, when ey1den less was 80. o
!. received by the Court Before submitting tn
ns case to the jury, plaintiff requested the Coul
as to charge il, and the Judge ehargedLl Is
IL That the only question was whether or nc
- plaintiff was owner Of the property if they be
lieved he was they should find for plaintiff. e
That the sheriff was presumed TO have done IN a.
duty and the jury are not to infer fraud or con,
he sion from the fact that the price bore no propo
IT, ton to the value Of the property 81 mat art
to Gle 199 Is not repealed By article $751; but must
We construed together, so that no wordin them
he void or insignificant 4th. That the sale could no
rs be attacked colaterally unless they believed tn
It same was fraudulent. 5th That the declaration
Of the sheriff in his deed Of sale are to regarded
~ true unless rebutted by evidence. a blil OF ex
le ceptions to this charge is taken by defendant
al The charge objected to was evidently correct
e although if no fraud appeared it was unnecessar
e to inquire into any ground of nullity. 1T was sim
ply incumbent on the plalntlil 70 adanGe, as "
j. raise, in regard the sale to him, the presump
4 ton one,aia recte dcd and this we think he ha
N done, SO far, at least, as to protect him from
1tla
tiff in the identical suit under which the title wa
. derived So long as the sheritf7s sale is not Sc
#, aside by Judgment in direct action, he may invok
that title against the seizure by defendant n j. il
junction. We find no error in the Judgment OF IN
y Court, which reserves to the defendants any RICH
/, they may have to claim the nullity Of the sale i
direct action Verdict of the, jury and Judgmen
Of the Court below, in favor Of plaintiff and appe
N, lee, affirmed. 5sis y5g&t tf 5,,, ',
!, ls4f. .slg 4 CASE OF sEIzuEE THE SHERIFF. t
+. The State of Louisiana VS.. Judge of the Fourt
: District Court. Appeal from the Fourth Distri,
4 Court of New Orleans. The REALTORS, Messrs
., Noblom, Benocq a. Co., state that the sheriff, o
executing writ of fieri facas in the suit Of Mrs
@. Gayarre against them,, at the instance OF til
plaintiff, seized property, real and personal disre
D. garding the debtors right to point out property
Y The court below ordered that the sheriff sha
seize and sellfirst, the notes pointed out by dc
PENDANTS; and should they prove insufficient the
- he shall proceed to satisfy the claim out of tn
10. in his possession for atpurpose. The relator
I pray for asuspensiye appeal against this jude
q. ment. The prayer is refused by the lower cour
J which says that the only proceeding by which tn
q. same can be stayed is by injunction. He cite
'f act of April Z, 1926, Minor vs.. Bank Of NJ S.,
mt R. 400, Clement VS.. Oakley, r. 3D. We are
9s opinion that the District Judge decided correctly
"a. Rule dismissed at cost of relater q. Lahauvt
IA Judge, ID a b. iitgp q; 05autt.t II
rs la3j RIGHT TO TRIAL CIVIL CASES. 5t
az. I A. P. Simpson vs.. Stephen d. Richardson. Al
peal from the Sixth Judicial District Court, paris
of Livingston. Defendant being sued for the valu
of the use of a house and garden filed his answe
n before the suit set for trial. praying therei
d that the case might be tried by jury. This praye
en was refused and the coert who tried the caus
t@a without a jury gave Judgment against defendan
!. Defendant appealed The right of trial by jur
x. was improperly refused. (See Code of Practice
~ article 495.l Judgment OF lower court is, Their
i'll. fore, reversed and the case remanded for tri
I0 by jury. Chief Justice Hyman, Judge. Ea&
n Isl 80. e------- s.
~ TrOuble with Negro Soldiers at Columbia
= Georgia,
"a AN OLD CITIZEN LOSES LEG--A NEGRO soLDIE
e t&a it@ia ~ shot, n. 4 W.
w The Columbus Sun Of the 18th says an affair o
Cured yesterday afternoon, about o'clock, whit
all regret, hut which could not have been ayoide
From what we can learn from witnesses, bo
ey. white and black. it seems that two young me-