New Orleans Republican., 1867-06-04

Judgment rendered. aud cause remanded


Judgment rendered, aud cause remanded
to proceed according to law
Ldllanue vs. ingram, ana same VS.. Jaws.
Davis was subscriber for 1000 shares, 80 .
each, OF the capital stock OF the
Mechahlcs and Agricultural faT as
sociatlon, but the certificates were
never Issued to him. lie pledged them by
written instrument TO lallahde. ingram
sued MN and issued execution ana Levied
upon them. Lallande then enJOlned the
execution OF Ingram on the ground these
shares were his by hypothecaton. Inc
court decided these shares not having been
issued oy certlhcates were not the suolect ol
hypothecatlon, and that Ingram by his exc
cutlon obtained superior right to DAVIS
interest. Judgment affirmed, and amended
oy Striking out tie hVe per cent. interest al
loWeu, as TINS Is not Case Tor the recovery
OF interest
James vs. fcAo"5 q" 20. Judgment IT,
served.
Denton vs. woods. Denton ana irwin
were coparthcrs ana purchased real estate
patture properly above the triangle ouliu-
lnSs, Whlcn stoOu IN the name OF lrWin
me latter had obtained against MN lndivl9-
ualiy u hunloer OF Judgments upon "llch
execution was levied upon THIS ana other
propertT, but no sale made Denton theh
-ued IRWIN Tor partltlAn, and pendlng lhls
action the property was SOLD entire on
ahother execution 10 the defendant WOODS.
Denton obtained a Judgment against IRWIN
LOT ms uhulVlueu nail. anu lhls actlon Is 10
nave MS rights asccFlalhtd against WOODS,
the purchaser oi ne wholt, on thc ground
that ne had not!ce OF Dchtoh clalm py the
institution OF the original partltloh SUIT.
The court affirmed the Judgment OF the
court oeIow, decrceing partition as woods
could not ouy more than irwin mad.
robertson vs. A; Levy Motlon TO us
mss appeal oEcrruleu! ana judgment LOT
defendant as OF non SUIT.
| Bowman V. Gonegal. In TINS case IT ap-
pears mat Gohegal contracted with Gov
erhor fettuS; OF MlsslsIippl. TO lurhish nm
rom rom New orIcahs SAY 20 the value OF
s9ooo, ana 10 receive IN payment thereof
cotton oeiohSllS 10 the confederate gov
tI4niTnt. .ii ~ uoAtsal oulalne.t the money
Itoh' Po"luau' anu "sttCu win bowman nc
shguli snare ohe-hal III tAe prohts OF TINS
anu anu al other Transactions TO grow out OF
tneSe H IeIatiohs' t ToAeEa! never Cohsu suininated
lhe barter aS lar Us tne evidence Is con
Gerheu' ana bowman brings thls acton TO
recover PACK thc S1oV3, Inc court hei1
tAat WINE as u genera rue 'heY would
not inquire o4tslde OF the evidence
and the record into the motives OF
! paItes 10 contracts yet the IlIesallty ci a
gom';acI Couti ue SuP"n az any s.ne anu II
Wa ~ 1i,G @ interest oi puoilC JuSlCe 10 per
my IL. iHls was coh'faGt u ald directly
N IuIIlShlhE 7uIPIe7 ana nuylhS materials
| rom tHose "Eo were I'aFoilhg 10 destroy
the goVerhintht ol me Chltcd states ana to
disrupt the uhloE. Such an action cannot
STAND IN our courts, and parties cannot there
seek redress tor the Ill success OF their Illicit
schemes. Judgment that the action be dis
missed.
Bonnln VS.. Elliott. verdict, $1,000 for
| SANDER Judgment affirmed.
Richard Taylor vs.. Mohan, controller.
| The plaintiff Is the lessee OF the new canal.
| Prior to its lease a bridge was au
| thorllcd to be bullt over 1t at Lib
! erty street. The defendant, as controller
| OF the city adjudlcated the contra ct
and the plaintiff sought by Injunction to
| restrain the Imprisonment. Tie court
affirmed the judgment OF the court below
disselving the injunction.
City Bank VS.. Bellocq, Noble Il Co. Mo
tion to dismiss appeal AS not taken within
judicial time. The time is to be counted
from the day the judgment is signed, not
when entered, but the appellant has lost his
rights, otherwise there is no error in the
record; judgment affirmed
Nalle vs. Nentress. Judgment amended to
eight not ten per cent. interest; otherwise
affirmed.
Hope Insurance Company VS.. Success
sion Of KingslauC. Judgment rendered
The Insurance company not liable to
pay over the whole amount OF pro.