The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-12-15

".
since resided. aud was the postmaster. raere il
no reason assigned why suit could not have been
brought against him In the courts of his domicil.
before prescription on the note was acquired,
January 2, 1866, and according to the doctrine OF
the case OF Rabel vs.. Pour clan, 20 A. 81, the
maxim invoked cannot avail the plaintiff.
Ii Is therefore ordered thai the judgment ap
pesled from be reyeI sed and that there De judg
ment In favor of defendant. with costs 10 both
courts. Mr.. Justice Taliaferro Reused.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE J. @. TALIAFERRo.
No, l4s-Gustsve Brusle, appellant, VS.. Pierre
seuve; third opposition OF police jury left bank.
parish OF Jeferson-Alfred Cirima & +. j. Cooley
for plant and appellants B. C. Elliott for police
jury, appellee: Appeal from Second District
Court, parish OF jefferson.
The police jury of the parish Of Jefferson left
bank come IN by way of third Cd position clai ming
by preference 1875 IS, with interest and costs.
out of the proceeds of q tract of land sold under
writ of teri fdcids issued at the suit of the
plaintiff having a special mortgage on the pro-
perry sold. The opponents aver that their claim
Is Tor parish taxes on the property sold, for
series OF years consecutivey, commencing with
the year 1850 and running to the year 1856 incn-
sve. and for interest and costs arising from their
non payment.
The plaintiff and appellant resist this claim on
several grounds:
/. That no legal assessment of parish taxes has
been made against the tract of land sold under
his mortgage. and that DO such taxes are due.
2. That tor the years 1660, 1861, 1852 1868 and
1864 the alleged assessment was upon a large
number of slaves, horses. stock of various kinds
carriage, etc., as well as upon the land and if
bound at all Tor any of these taxes, he is not
bound for thai portion assessed against the
slaves.
8. Prescription-Thst II the land sold were ever
liable for the taxes claimed, the privilege granted
by law upon the real property to secure their pay.
ment lie extinct by the limitation of the lien of two
years from the lst OF April of the year for whicl
the assessment made.
4. That if the assessment be legal IL was made
upon an entire tract Of land containing 1000 ar.
penis, while the part of that tract subject to
plainnf-s mortgage and sold contains only f6I ar.
penis, and consequently. that il subject to him at
al for the taxes claimed it is subject only to
proportional part of the amount assessed. The
opponents had judgment for $643 80, with first
privilege upon the proceeds of the land sold. The
plaintiff appeals
In this court the opponents and appelees pray
TO have the judgment of the lower court amended
by allowing them the whole amount of their
claim.
We have given a careful examination to the
evidence introduced in this case, and are not
satisfied that il establishes with sufficient GER
tainfy that the forms strictly required by law IN
the making assessments of property have in this
case been observed. AS far as disclosed by the
record we are Unable. from want of description of
the property assessed, to identify it as that on
which the opponents claim the privilege. Taxing
this view OF the case we deem it unnecessary to
examine the other points stated in the defense.
II is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed
that the judgment Of the district court be annnlled
avoided and reversed. IL is forther ordered that
this suit be dismissed without prejudice, the az.
pelees paying costs.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE W. G. WILEY.
No. l42l-Wm. Murphy, appellee, VS.. Morritz
kaufman, appellant-Horner Benedict for ap.
pellee Gustavus Schmidt for appellant Appeal
Iromisixth District Court OF New Orleans.
In 1864, defendant made contract with plaintiff |
TO convey bis goods in the wagons OF the latter |
from Franklin to Newtown, in this State, and TO |
return the teams Immediately after the completion
81 the contract to the owner at Franklin. The \
considera'ion of this contract was one hundred |
dollars, which we're paid in advance. After the |
goods were delivered at Newtown and the wagons |
and whilst the drivers we're about start
Dg back with the wagons, pursuant to the under |
standing OF the parties at the time OF the hire the
defendant prevailed on the drivers to convey the |
FOODS from Newtown 10 Alexandria, which they |
lid. In this trip and at Alexandra, the wagons |
Ind teams were taken or lost, or from some cause
we're never returned by defendant to plaintiff.
To recover the value of this property this &C. |
ion was instituted. On the trial the district judge
rave Jude ment against the defendant for $3.50
md interest and costs and he has appealed. We
hiDk the judge dQuo did not err in overriding
iefendants exception that plaintiffs petition
loes not Get forth when the contract was made,
md whether in writing or not. Plaintiffs petition
ully discloses his cause Of action there was no
Iad ground for the exception. We are satisfied
rom the evidence that defendant made the con.
Iact ss alleged, with plaintiff, and afterwards
Iiolated IL for bis own advantage convenience,
md by reason thereof plaintiff lost the pro-
,eTty mentioned in his petition. che value of the
property is fully proven.
We do not find in the record sufficient evidence |
o satisfy us that the drivers were the agents of
plaintiff, authorized to contract with defendant.
IN the contrary, it seems they we're only hired by
H.
o Franklin. And it also seems that defendant
mself had charge of the wagons; the drivers
consented TO 60 on to Alexandria because they |
id not wish to leave the wagons which they evil
emily thought defendant would take anyhow.
We also concur with the district Judge that |
enersl order No. 8, issued by Gen. Candy. o.
Sth January, 1866, does not apply to defsndent.
ven II be were capable of exercising military
unctons or enforcing military order.
We do not think from the evidence that he took
be prop ery in question in pursuance Of the orders
4 the president or the commander of the forces
D that expedition.
1t is therefore ordered that the judgment of the
curt below be affirmed with costs.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE W. W. HOWE.
No. l43l-villeueuve lie Blanc Jr. & Co.. ap.
ellants, VS.. l.. 4. Perroux, Philippe Marsondet
noroa ated, appellee Jos. a. Grover, security in
lncton on ond. appellsnt-B. and J. Grover for
ppellant l.. Ca-tera and G Hunt for appellee |
rlesns.
This il an action Of nullity.
The judgment sought to De annnllel was red
cred in q suit upon four promissory notes name
v VilleDeuve Leblanc Jr. Co., of the parish OF
Vest Baton Rouge, who in an act granting a
lortgsge upon their plantation, situated in the
arish of West Baton Rouge, to secure these
otes, consented as follows:
Here the act Of mortgage is rected electing
be Office of Bellocq, Noblom 4 Co., or that OF
heir successors in this city, for their domicil and
the benefit of any laws now in force
T hereafter to be enacted, providing that the de-
sDdants can only be sued or projected against
ef0re the judge of the district or parish wherein
hey reside or have their domicil.
In this action upon the promissory notes, CON-
fenced in the Sixth District Court of New On
'ans, the return upon the citation was the fol-
wing:
az served a copy Of this citation and accompany
IL petition on A. p. Noblom, agent of V. LIE
anc, defendant berein. personally
Upon this return Judgment by default was en-
red. and in due time the default was confirmed
nd judgment rendered against Octave tLe-
lane and V. Leblanc. composing the firm OF V.
eBlanc, Jr. * Co.. in solido, for the sum of
Is 600, with sundry arrears of interest and with
rivilege on the property mortgsged.
Steps having been taken to execute this judg-
ent, the plaintiffs 10 the case at bar commenced