New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-08
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court Of Louisiana.

supreme court Oh 2IOuIbAnu"'
In this court, yesterday, a few decisions
were rendered, mostly in country cases, but
none of special interest to the public. A
decision on the constitutionality of the act
Incorporating the Crescent City Live Stock
Landing and Slaughterhouse Company was
anxlously expected. but not announced.
This court will, on Monday next, the
fourteenth instant, fix cases for argument.
Sixth District Court.
j. o. Noyes vs. Patrick rin.-Judge
Cooley yesterday delivered an opinion in
this case, in effect as follows:
This suit is for the recovery Of damages
sustained Dy the plaintiff for the wrongful
suing out Of an Injunction in the United
States Circuit Court for the district Of
Louisiana. In the answer filed in that suit,
defendant made unconventional demand
for $1,000, based on the same cause as that
urged in the present suit, 20 wit: the injury
caused by suing out that injunction. The
judgment of the United States Court sus-
tanned all the points urged by the defense,
except that it dissolved the Injunction, with
out giving damages.
1t is too well settled, to be contested, that
when party defendant claims, by way of
reconvention, and the judgment rendered
makes no mention OF the claim thus set up,
in constitutes res adjudicatd not only as to
the demand of the plaintiff, but also as to
that of defendant in reconvention. Tho
plea of res judicata is sustained. Judgment
for defendant.
State e5 rel Robert Dean os. J. O. Landry,
COntr0Ler.-In this case plaintiff asks for q
mandamus compelling defendant to issue
certain warrants. J. r. Beckwith, City
Attorney, has tled an answer. setting forth
that by the act No. Al of the Legislature of
1870, the city Of New Orleans is compelled
to receive. in payment of all taxes and debts
due it, the checks or orders of the Metro
poIitan Police Board, and that this act sus-
pends all cash receipts from all sources, and
renders it impossible for the city to pay the
warrants askeq for. if drawn.
Fourth Bistrict Court.
Thomas ByrAes Us. NJ +. Bigney Judge
Theard yesterday rendered a decision in this
case to the following effect: In March 1865.
plaintiff obtained a Judgment in this court
against Mrs. ". A. Gruett for about $500,
and the furniture in her boarding house was
seized. In April following an intervenor,
claiming the property as her own, eDjoined
the sale, and ttae plaintiffs attorney ordered
the seizure to- be released. In December,
1868, the iniuEction was dismissed, and the
property was hgain seized In March, 1869.
On the thirty-G,rst of March plaintiffs coun-
sci again released the seizure, owing to the
fact that the owner of the house in which
Mrs. Gruett lived had filed third opposi-
ton, claiming the landlords privilege on the
furniture seized.
Byrne then brought the present action,
claiming that the intervenor is liable to
him for the damages he has sustained in
being prevented by the injunction from ex-
ecuting his Judgment against Mrs. Gruett.
Defendant pleads res judicata.
The plea of res jud,catd is untenable, be-
cause the question of damages has never
been before the court at any time. But the
action is unfounded on the merits. The
property remained in possession of Mrs.
Gruett for long period after the dissolu-
ton Of the Injunction and when the second
execution was issued she hsd got in debt
for rent and the landlords privilege had at.
tached to her: furniture. 1t is not the in
tervenor's fault that this privilege had
attached on property which plaintiff might
previously have had sold under an eXecu.
ton. Plaintiffs claim rejected with costs