New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-11-17
snpreme oourt DecI.lon..

We condense from the Times an abstract
of decisions rendered in the Supreme Court
yesterday:
In deciding the case of A. Ledoux VS.. A.
A. Jones ct al, an action by plaintiff against
the lessee, Jones and sureties, to recover
of them, the defendants, the sum of S233T so
and interest, for the balance due on the
lease of dwelling house from first De-
cember, 1860, to tnirtieth December, 1863,
and there being judgment in the lower
court against all the parties, and San
ford, one of the sureties, having appealed.
Wiley, j., pronounced the opinion of the
court. The question submitted is: "Whether
the sureties of the contract OF the lease have
been discharged from their liability by any
act of plaintiffr 1t is enough that the les
Sor did no act to produce the abandonment
of the premises, or impair the terms of the
contract of lease, or alter the thing during
the continuance of the lease, c. G. 66S. The
law does not require the lessor to enforce
his lien againt the lessee before the surety
can be held liable. The failure to relet the
house did not discharge the surety, Sanford.
1.-THE Court can not perceive any reason
why the surety of the lessee should be dis
charged. Judgment of the lower court
affirmed"
in deciding the case Of Mrs. J. NJ. Blkiu
VS.. Mrs. j. h, Harney, suit brought by the
plaintiff to recover the amount Of a bill of
-
| opinion Of the court. 1t appears that the
| District Judge decreed that the goods-se-
| questered III the possession of defendants be
sold to satisfy plaintiffs claim and it is from
this Judgment the appeal is taken. The
| opinion of the Judge of the District Court
/ was concurred in; that there was suffi-
| clent evidence to show that the contract
| Of sale was really made between Elkin and
| Banks, Loring & b., and that the conditions
| given to the latter were agreed upon. In
this case, however, Banks, Loring & Co.
were the purchasers, hut the goods were not
| III the possession Of the purchasers, but of
| third persons not shown TO hold for said
purchasers, and against the latter this suit
j. not brought. We think the defendant,
| against whom judgment is asked, is shown
not to be liable, and besides she is shown not
TO be separate in property. Judgment of
the lower court is reversed.
IN deciding the case of Duncan n Hem
nen vs.. the New Orleans and Carrollton
Railroad Company, suit was brought to
recover Sl9,Q}0 price paid for a certain
| amount of land sold by the defendant and
from which the plaintiff was evicted by Mrs.
| MYra Clark Gaines, rule was taken in the
lower court to show cause why the plain
titf's petition should not be dismissed. In
the absence of the plaintiff the rule wal
made absolute, and the suits. includ-
ing the original fee as well as th,
petition, dismissed There was erro,
in the judgment. Even if the plain
tf had been regularly notified of the hear
ing of the rule Tor the twentythird May, II
is difficult to see how the maintenance oi
the exception could have properly had any
effect upon the plaintiffs original petition.
The plaintiff was entitled to notice Of the
hEing of q rule which had been continued
indefinitely, in the same manner as he
would have been entitled to notice of new
rule, and the case should therefore be re
manded that the rIle may be regularly
heard. Judgment reversed, and case re-
manded for further proceedings, Hiddleston
appellee, to pay the cost of appeal.