New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-08-10
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

State ex rel, +. c. Mahan VS.. State Treas
urer-In this case Governor Warmoth, in
the absence of the Attorney General, has
filed petition of appeal, as follows: The
petition shows that on the first OF August,
lS7O, in,the above entitled cause, judgment
was rendered by this court, ordering a per-
emptory mandamus to issue. whereby the
State Treasurer was ordered to credit
Mahan, as State Tax Collector, in his settle
ment with the Treasurer, with the sum of
$l4.497 46. being the amount of certain
warrants received by Mahan for taxes, and
alleged by him to have been afterward
stolen from his safe.
Petitioner AYERS that there is error in the
jud gment to the prejudice of the State, and
asks an appeal to the Supreme Court of
the State.
Judge Emmerson granted the appeal.
The Ship Island Canal Case.
Mr.. George S. Lacey, City Attorney. yes
terdav, announced in the Eighth District
Court that he had received from the
Supreme Court at Monroe, an alternative
grant an appeal in the Ship Island case, re-
turnable in November.
State eX rel. Jacob Strauss vs.. Southern
Bauk-In this case motion was made by
Hays Il New, of counsel for relatOr, as fol-
lows On showing to the court the bank
book of relator and the entries made there
in and on showing there is contempt of
the authority of this court by said entries,
it is ordered that Thomas Layton, president
of said bank. and c. Livaudais, cashier, do
show cause on Tuesday, the ninth Of August,
yesterday. why they should not be pun
ished for a contempt of court.
Alleged contempt consisted in the follow
ing entry made in the passbook of the rela
tr:
To balance, in obedience to Judgment or
peremptory mandamus of the Eighth Dis
trict Court. in the case of Jacob Strauss VS..
the Southern Bank, by which this bank is
ordered to balance this book, emitting a
check for $4,000 dated April g. 1870; upon
this bank and certified by the bank. From
the said Judgment the bank applied for, but
was refused, suspensive appeal, and will
apply at the earliest possible moment to
compel the court to grant the appeal The
bank protests against such judgment, deny
ing its indebtedness to said Strauss, except
for $l34 Sc. C. Livaudais and Thomas Lay
ton, cashier and president. The Judge re-
served his decision on the rule until this
morning at ten o'clock.
Henry Stafford. vs. T. L. Maxwell, Sheriff
In this case petitioner shows that, acting
under a writ of fieri facias from the parish
of Natchitoches, issued under Judgment
in favor of Marie Felicie SOldini against
Henry Stafford, plaintiff herein, the Sheriff
of the parish of Orleans has seized, or pre-
tended to seize, and has advertised for sale
and will sell. unless enjoined, certain
Judgment rendered June Is, 1870 by the
Fourth District Court of this city in favor
of petitioner and against D. 4. Carroll for
the sum of S25OO.
Petitioner AYERS that in his opinion said
pretended seizure is illegal and null, and
that if the contemplated sale is permitted
to take place it will work him an irrepar
able injury.
Petitioner sets forth the following grounds
of illegality and nullity, to wit The seizure
herein complained of was of Judgment
rendered. but not signed, the judgment
having been rendered on the sixteenth Of
June. 1860, and not signed until June the
twenty-seventh, while the pretended seizure
thereof purports to have been made on the
twenty-fourth of the same month.
Petitioner AYERS that the judgment is I'M
perfect, has no effect and is not liable to
seizure, and can not, as a Judgment, he
seized until it shall be signed. After the
seizure was made the Judgment was signed,
and D. Il. Carroll, the Judgment debtor,
took a suspensive appeal to the Supreme
Court. and that appeal is still pending
Plaintiff AYERS that the judgment thus ap-
pealed from is an ineorporeal right, in the
nature of claim of debt, and can not be
seized by writ of teri .facias, except by
propounding interrogatOries to the ,judg
ment debtor, and then awaiting the final
decision of the Supreme Court thereon, and
if confirmed, the seizing creditor will then
have the right under and by virtue of his
process Of garnishment to collect the
amount of the judgment
Petitioner AYERS that the judgment il
question can not be sold at public sale, be-
| cause, in the very nature of the case, it can
not be legally appraised, for no appraiser
| can possibly ascertain what will be the de-
cision of the Supreme Court upon the ap-
peal, and without that knowledge no ap-
| prasement can be fairly and intelllglbly
made, for by such decision only can 1t be
| ascertained whether or not the Judgment
| has any value whatever. .s.
Petitioner further AYERS that the SEIZURE,
so far as it purports to be of petitioners IN
terest III the suit, is void for vagueness, mas
much as it affords no clue by which bidder
at the sale could be guided in forming an
estimate of the value of plaintiffs interest,
and that tbs only way to seize his interest is
by process of garnishment. An injunction re-
straining the Sheriff from selling the .judg-
ment was prayed for, and issued by order
of Judge EmmersOn.