The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-02-02

we perceive no legal necessity for the writ which
In the reasons given in the case of D'Mezs, ah
ordered that the rule taken BY REALTORS herein Be-
dismissed with costs.
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE W. G. WILEY.
No. lls4-succession of George McCsusaud.
Appeal from the Seventh District Court, parish q
ton. The administrator of this succession fled
his final account and tableaux. An opposition
was sled TO the homologation thereof, andfrom
the Judgment on the opposition THIS appeal has
been taken.
miss the appeal because all the creditors on tbs
tsbeaux are not made parties thereto. the appeal
bond being In favor OF only part OF the credors.
The creditors the tablesux VINO make this
notion ere clearly interested in malnislHing the
judgmentsppealed from, and the bond Is defective
in not being in their favor also.
The motion to dismiss is well taken (see the
case of the succession of Jacob Weige, laielyd Do
c'ded, and the authority there cited
lis therefore ordered that the Judgment rsn-
dered by this court on the 4ih February, ISL
dismissinE this appeal remain undlsturbed.
SY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 1868 Shark, Stauffer & Co. KIttridge 81
Ewing. appeal from the District Court for tlsI
parish OF Lsfourche.
TO s34s 81 with five per cent. interest on sl22 s.,
from September s, 1860, and On s225 So from
Jane II, 1861.
The totsl of principal and interest to the last
| date doea not smount TO the sum OF $500. aud
| hence this court IS without jurisdiction.
1t Is ths refore ordered that the appeal herein
be dismissed at the cost of the appellants plaintiffs
\ in this suit.
The ples of three years prescription set up By
defendants was sustained hence the appeal.
BY JUDGE W. @. WILEY.
F. A. Boyle 4 Co. Appellants vs.. Kiitredge 3
| Ewing BppeIlees. Appeal from the Third Distdct
! Court, parish Of Lafourche-No. 1861.
Plaintiffs sued the defendants on an open a.,
count for plantation supplies sold them on the ia
Of March, 1861. Defendants pleaded the prescnp-
ZION Of three and five years.
There was Judgment in the lower courts In favor
of defendants, and plaintiffs have appealed. The
account seems TO be prescribed Oh its face, having
been made on the 4th of March, 1851, and notsnef
upon till the 29th March, 1867 when the defend
| ants were cited. Plaintiffs have attempted to
prove the account was Acknowledged by one OF
| the defendants, Kittridge, in March, 1865. They
have offered but one witness, Jno. 81. Polhaus VITO
| testifes as follows In or abOut the month Of
| March, 1865. DR.. Kittredge informed me, in New
| Orleans. when l asked him about the bills he
would pay out Of that years crop. He said if he
| made good crop, be would pay that season.
DR.. kiitredge contradicts this testimony, and
states in substance that about the time nentionst
by Mr.. Polhaus in his nteuogstory, 7 was present.
at his counting house. purchasing Of him large
invoice OF pork and -four for my use at Gilmore
yersation between us was in regard TO Erial aud
Raceland plantations. | observed 20 Mr. Polhsns
that those plantations had been nearly destroyed
by the Confederate and Federal troops aud that
instead Of making anything since the war began,
we had been out of pocket some $4,000 bat this
year tlse5) we had put in large crop OF cotton
and expected to make good profit, provided We
succeeded in our crops, and If so we might he able
TO ps2 epy Just and valid claim they might have
against ne. Mr.. Polhsus then observed to me that
Mr.. Boyle had some claim against these plsnia-
tons, without showing any specific account Of
such claims. ] answered that did not know any
thing about these claims, that Or. Ewing was the
man who attended to that, and that be must go TO
him. did not acknowledge these accounts. and
had no idea of doing so, for knew nothing Of the
articles charged therein.
The Judge decided that the testimony of the
latter witness invalidated that Of the former: that
the plaintiffs failed to establish the interruption Of
the prescription of three years pleaded by the
defendants, and ordered that the judgment APP
pealed from be affirmed with costs.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE j. t. LUDELEG.
No. 9s2--The State Of Louisiana ex. rel. Fran
els eternberg vs. Cleopbas Lagarde. Appealfrou
the parish Of Lsfourche.
The petitioner slleglDg himself to be the de in.
and de fscto sheriff OF the parish of Lafourche,
applied TO the judge Of the third Judicial dis
trict for Dandamus TO compel bis predecessor
in office 10 deliver TO him the room, keys, paper,
records, books, documents and other things ap-
pertaining to the office of sheriff. peremptory
mandate was issued, ordering the party 10 do
what was demanded Of him. From this order the
defendant has appealed.
Even if the defendant had such an interest in
the matter in condensation, the possession of the
room, keys, papers, ETC., belonging to the Office
as TO authorize him to take an appeal from the
order. il does not appear from the record, that
their yalre exceeds five hundred dollars. THIS
court is without Jurisdiction ratone materia. Con-
sitution Of 1868, article g. Meyers VS.. MITCHELL
20, An. II Is true 1t is alleged that the Office Of
sheiiffis worth over five hundred dollars. But the
matter 10 dispute is not the Office Of sheriff, bat
The room, keys, papers, etc., belonging thereto
The right 10 an Office cannot be tested, under ex-
isting laws. on an application for writ of man
dsmus. 4 N. S. Lafftte vs.. Duncan. 62S IL AN.
7l9. acts Of 1868, PIP. 220 and II and 1899.
II Is Therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed
that the appeal be dismissed at the costs ofthe APP
sllant.