The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-03-12
James Magher VS.. A. 8. Readng-Fourth Dis


James Magher VS.. A. q. Reading-Fourth Dis.
trict Court-l7 457-Judee Thesrd.
IL ia not necessary 10 decide whether the cotton
IN controversy was deIivsrad first 10 the plaintiff
or TO the defendant, nor whether IL was necessary
TO prove the law of Mississippi a. a fact in the
case for am satisfied that there Is no substantial
difference between the rule of the common and
civil law by which the Question on which the de-
csion turns is to be decided. The sale to the
plaintiff was made in 1868, and that to the defend
ant in 1865: and IL is proved that when Mahou
purchased the cotton he was informed that it had
previously been sold to the plaintiff. This knowl.
edge vitiates his contract Bush, the vendor had
no cotton to sell to the knowledge of Mshon.
through whom the defendant claims. The au-
thorities relied on refer TO the question at whose
risk is the property which has been sold when
something remains 70 be done by the vendor and
Law down the same principle as that contained in
own law, where, for instance, the sale is made
by the tale measure weight the thing is at the
risk of the vendor until, the counting, measuring
or weighing has taken place, but in every other
respect the contract is complete, and the property
transferred to the purchaser as the parties
have agreed on the thing sold and the price to be
paid for it, Shelf VS.. Morgan, 8 NJ, 592 Hill VS..
Morgan. AM. 8. All. -. ..,t.
IL ia therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed
that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the
one hundred and twenty four bales OF cotton Sc
questered herein with costs of suit.
No. l9. .726--Fourth District Court Judge Theard
presiding. Flash, Hartwell i Co. VS.. N. O., Jack.
son and q. N, r. r. Co.
plaintiffs sue for breach of contract of affreight.
ment bv pou.deijvery of 800 barrels of mossses
agreed TO be delivered to them at Mobile The
molasses was received by defendants as common
carriers on the 26th February, 1862. The nonde-
livery ia admitted and the value of $4,000 at the
nlsns ~ Sestination ia nnd:snnssd That yalne ia
the measure of plaintiffs rights.
The defendants seek TO avoid their liability from
the Condition of the couptrv at the time and an
averment of comulicity with the power in con-
a:-. O. A.
a oussi force Ynd;etre by which the property was
destroved ana the prascription of one wear
The nrescriotion of one wear does nos aDplv to
land csrrisca and hein0 sfyicti ;,t,.is cannot he
evtendad
A 10 the defense IL vould render null. IL sus.
tanned anv contract made within Confederate
lines. and throw everything into confusion.
All the an,bora on tha law of nasians admit
,hat .;tbin hacsrent lines in the interast of noh
.haI Mi.nin osgerens .nes' ~ 'ue ., p9o
~ 49,; h; O. -sl;S 40 for ss thay conoarn
nr,vsta rsla,ions Whit;ng,s War Po1sys 55
HtiuesJ ~ nI, I.o..;o.I so1 ~
hs,iecA O,'o '0, ,o M aerao,
40 i, An",oy 80. q. sniip..s az - aoasssr,
uPon P ~ ~. ~, ~, " rnarsLin 80 snch ,ro
sr,n nav he cbaooeS dining sncb occnnstipn Nv
elV nny oo onase ~ ~ - 1ine eie so s .S., p -
guy peineoAons ~, Vi W ~ .St - - - s;s IA ~, 80, ;. - :,
us1lsy.t ~" Sso Sort;oyS eon,racts can ha mada
TtNn 'a oy' % g,asoh 81 hinossSa Tha av;
There was nc no breach oI ooeksqs. @ .s ane evl,
uelo1 '"o sus',l nSar tbs
ho EataSa,a,a 1890 Thara 1Sa no PsiaSa Of
either Mobile or New Orleans.
msritlme biocSaoe Is not violated oy seno-
ing goods to the biockaded port. or by orlnging
them from the same throagn tae iuterlor csOai
nsvlgsuon or laod carriage Oh the c'uh'fy'
Judge Chase. in his recent decision at Rich
mond IN the case of keppell va. Petersburg Rail-
road Company, though restricting 10 certain eX-
tent the principle that the Confederate states
were de tdcto government, says: 1T iselssr
hat hafvaQu
would be legal and binding under ordinary cir
cumstances. cannot be pronounced illegal and OF
10 obligation because done ia conformity with
laws enacted or directions given by the usurping
power" A tOrtiOri transactions usual under any
state of things between individuals aud not de-
hover. bpt in aeeordanee with the recognized
rules naaGss sss -is~S of saaaEns.sa aAefsssa by
the government de j,ve
The defendants received the molssssa 18th Feb
ruary, and for two moaihs thereafter received
other freight and forwarded it. Had they refused
10 receive any freight atter 26'h Feornsry Cnt
that in the depot had been forwarded. this claim
would not have arisen against them and the mo-
lssses would have reached Its Destination: NO
yorce nqere deprived tnetn OF their aoil'y 10
fulfill their contract, but!heir own neglect OF an
obvious duty which they had voluntarily under,
taken csused tne loss, ana tne consequence snouo
For these reasons let there Judgment in favor of
plaintiffs for $4,000 and interest from judicial de-
Inand and costs.
SEVENTH DISTRICT COURr;-the Jnry 10 tne
case OF MERCER Vs. the Carrolton haiiroad Com
paDy, brought N verdict OF Sto4l and interest,"
damages for plaintin. me Jury was composed Oh
three white men and nne negroes.
11,,,.,, cuus n,su.,c- co,-Dr rha ,v;,o
oNIIhp oIAihs 1 ..,,;a1n, 49,
eese was kain ~ seS.Sa ~ MasSy
Dont'nueu Du W 1i.s eo1s sAe g Yehoede u nS -
Goonelsu' HS - .IasIS ~ Geo.,
0IanIOIo, l VIC a: iet.ei en- o N NJ A. 'u
hOuse AoI .no OIHiln Hn.9' Nuu Va ' 1870 ~
butupg testimony for the government: DisIlct
Attorney Morgan submitted t1e points OF tne case
waving eISuntoht. Juuse hh'9aASl "@uo au