The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-03-16
There was Judgment in favor of plaintiff and the

the court DECIDES: However unwilling this court
tensea TO cover IN OF screen Of the
pursuit of creditors, We must adhere TO the ordi-
nary rules of pleading and not presume fraud or
stimulation when not charged. Judgment affirmed.
BY associate JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 2l4O-H. schorten VS.. H. c. Davis Bro:
Appeal from the Fifth District Court, parish OF
East Feliciana. Wedges Lyons for plaintiff and
appellant; Mcvea 4 Hunter for defendant and
appellee. This Is an attachment suit by mer-
chant of the town Of Baton Rouge against the
defendants as agricultural partners in the parish
of East Felicana for plantation supplies furnished.
The case was tried before a jury, who found
verdict dissolving the attachment. releasing John
Davis from liability, making Ii. @. Davis respon-
sible for the entire debt and coudemnlng paintih
to pay all costs and from Judgment thereon
the plaintiff has appealed.
The court concludes, after assigning reasons
and citing authorities, as follows: II is therefore
ordered that the judgmen ut appealed from be re-
versed and the verdict set aside, and proceeding
to give such judgment as should have been rem
dered, IT is ordered that there be Judgment
against plaintiff dissolyiog the attachment herein
at his cost and that he recover of defendants
jointly the sum Of 5000 so, with legal interest
from December I'd, ls67, with costs Of the main
action in the lower court and the costs of appeal.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 2ll0-A. c. Taylor and husband vs.. Boe-
dicker d Badenhausen. s. ID. Moody. Appeal
from the District Court, parish Of East Feliciana-
Mcyea & Hunter for plaintff and appellees; Kerr
nan 4 Lyons for appellant.
This is an appeal by third possessor from an
order of seizure and sale in which the only ques.
ton presented, stated by counsel for appeliees,
is whether the evidence before the district judge
was sufficient 10 authorize the issuance Of the
order OF SEIZURE" The error assigned is that the
note annexed TO the petition does not correspond
with and is not the one described in the act OF
sale in this q" 1. The note sued on is joint and
several note, and the note described in the act is
joint note.
80. The note sued on is signed by Emil Boe-
dicker and Julius G. BadeDhausen, IN sOltdO. and
the note described in the act is signed by Emil
Boedeeker Julius G. Badenhausen and Charles
Fl. Allyn jointly"
to the settled Jurisprudence of the State the EVIL
dence was not sufficient to authorize the order
There is therefore want of identity between
the said note and the one described in the anthem
tic act, and the judge erred in granting the order.
See the case of ticks vs.. Bernstne IS A., l4l, add
authorities there cited.
1t is therefore sdjudged and decreed that the
order of seizure and sale issued IN this be set
aside and snnulled, and that plaintiffs pay costs in
both courts.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE TALIAFERRo.
No. 2O99-Martn Hsney vs.. s. G. Manning; APP
peal from the Sixth Judicial District Court. parish
of st. Helena; 4. j. Ellis and I. G. W. Ellis, FOR
plaintiff; T. Green Davidson and E. F. Russell, for
appellant and defendant. srf
The plaintiff sues to recover from the defendant
the value Of services rendered to him during the
latter part of December 1868, and the greater part
of the year 1854; for the use of two horses aud
mule furnished by him for defendants benefit in
the performance of the services stated aud for the
value of buggy loaned to defendant and never
returned.
The answer contains general denial with the
averment that the services alleged by plaintiff to
have been performed by him for defendant were
rendered in carrying on an illicit and illegal trade
during the late war, between parties residing
within the opposite lines OF the contending parties
He that plaintiff cannot recover upon his de-
mand and prays Judgment in his own behalf.
The Jury before whom the case was tried
awarded verdict of $3.50 with interest In favor OF
the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
His honor, after labored reasoning decides
This court has repeatedly announced that 1t will
not entertain suits founded upon engagements in
volving violation Of law aud in derogation of
public morals The plaintiff 3 action IN this case,
grounded as il is shown TO be on engagements and
acts reprobaied by law must share the fate OF its
predecessors of the same character in this court
II is therefore ordered adj1dged and decreed
that the judgment of the District Court he an
| nulled, avoided and reversed. Is is further or
dered that the plaintiff action be dismissed 81 his
| cost in both courts.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WILEY.
No. 17O1-state of Louisiana vs.. Clinton and
| Port HUDSON Railroad Company. 8. Z. Hunter
| for appellant, John McVea for appellee. Appeal
| from the Fifth District Court, East Feciana.
On the opposition Of H. Hawford TO the final
account of B. Haynes, hquidator of the Clinton
| and Port Hudson Railroad Company, there was
| judgment for said Hawford on 26th November,
1868. for $500, to be ranked as one of the pryi-
| legged law charges against said corporation.
On the 18th June, 1867. rule was taken on the
| present liquidator TO show cause why said judg-
ment should not be allowed and paid as a'prlVi-
legged claim. This rule was made absolute. aud
defendant has appealed.
Judgment appealed IRON affirmed with costs.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 2060-State of Louisiana ex rel. T. Dsherty
VS.. G. Ingram. Appeal from District Court, par
ikh of st. Tammany.
This is a suit Cor the Office Of sheriff. etc. The
lower court decided in favor of the relaor aud the
defendant appealed. Judgment affirmed with
costs.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE J. WILEY.
No. 2l63-BeDj. Butman vs.. Peter Forchesse. al.
Appeal from District Court, parish Of st. Helena
j. K. Wilson, E. F. Russell for plaintiff and appel.
liant. Z. j. Ellis for defendant and appellee,
The plaintiff has eDjoined the defendant and
sheriff from selling his property seized to satisfy
Judgment rendered against him by defendant
in the parish Of ST. Tammany. Judgment afifmed
with costs.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE R. K. HOWELL, !
State of Louisiana rel. VIM. George ct ais. vs..
Vim. s. Mount, city treasurer, No. 1868. Appeal
from the Fifth District Court for the parish of
| Orleans. tir
motion is made by the REALTORS TO dismiss this
| appeal on the ground that no appeal bond has
been furnished by the appellant. In reply. it is
| contended that the city of New Orleans il the
real defendant and party in interest, and is bylaw
| exempt from giving an appeal bond.
The proceeding Is q mandanus, directing the
| defendant to fulfill duty required of him BY
| law as treasurer of the city Of New Orleans by
| paying certain warrants in favor Of and held BY
| the REALTORS, and he has appealed from jadg-
| ment making the writ perem2tory.
| The city not having been cited through its PRO.
| per officer Is not party to the suit. We know
Of no law authorizing the treasurer to represent
| the corporation In litigation. The exemption in
favor Of the city being in derogaton of genafal
| law, cannot be extended to other parties. et4n
| though they be officers Of the corporation. 4
1t il therefore ordered that the appeal her din
be dismissed at appellants cost. 4
| BY JUDGE TALIAFERRo.
G. W. Denton vs.. a. B. Reading-No. 20f9-b-
peal from the Sixth District Court of New OEeaIs.
| A motion 10 dismiss this appeal is made on he
I ground that the amount Of the appeal bond pbt
| sufficient to authorize suspensive appeal, ihf-
| much as 1t does not exceed by onehaf the sum
| for which tie judgment was rendered. This de
find is the case but under the provisions OF tie