New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-12-16
ORLEANS REPUBLICAN, FRIDAY, DEcEMBER IS 1870

lowing decision IVES rendered in this case
yesterday BY Judge beaumont:
THIS q rule taken by the defendant in the
above case to show cause why the rights
| that he has in q contract of lease Of pro-
perry belonging to the State, and which
have been seized by the Sheriff, should not
be released on the grounds;
That the property OF the State can not be
sold to pay the debts Of any individual
without its consent; that the contract en-
tered into between the State and defendant
is q personal one, and as such not liable to
seizure and sale; that the seizure of the
rights of the defendant under this contract
would release the sureties that he has given
to the State, and as such impair the con-
tract between them and the State; that the
contract is not one of lease, but one to do a
lease (article 1869 Criminal COde), because
it is the giving Of the enjoyment Of thing
True it is that it contains certain condi-
tons to the something, but these are Incl
dents of the main contract, and can not
alter it's nature.
Because in the contract of lease that you
entered into relatively to my house, there is
a stipulation that you shall pave the yard,
dig well and cut gutter, it does not fol-
low that the contract is not one Of lease.
Therefore it is contract of lease.
The property of the State has not been
seized in this case, it is only the rights of
the defendant in certain contract entered
between him and tho State. But on the
supposition that the property Of the State
had been seized, we find no opposition from
the State. On the contrary, the Attorney
General appears to be unwilling to interfere,
and it is settled that if my property be
seized to pay the debts of another, the
court will not listen to him setting up that
defense, but will only listen to me; and if
say nothing, the property will be sold and
the title valid.
Now, there is no clause in the, contract of
lease prohibiting the defendant to suitcase,
and If there were, it could only be taken
advantage of by the lessor; that clause is
for his benefit only: he only can object.
of opinion that the contract in this case is
not comprised within those specially ex-
cepted from seizure and sale by articles
644-45-47 Code of Practice. and the acts of
twenty-second of March, 1872, and twenty
seventh of March, l843.
1t is. therefore, ordered that the rule
taken in this case be dismissed; that the
e. porte order of court, suspending the seiz-
ure of this case until hearing, be quashed
and anuulled, and the Sheriff do proceed
with the writ in this case; that the counter
rule taken by the defendant in this rule be
made absolute, at the cost of the defendant,
Richard Taylor.
The amount involved is note of some
sac, 1000. given to the First National Bank
by the defendant Taylor.
Dieter, Goldstein & Co. VS.. Boyd, Jami-
son & Co.-This case was being tried yes
terday before Judge Dibble, of the Eighth
District Court 1t is a test case, in which
a number of others are joined, and the
matter in dispute is the charge made by the |
Cotton Press Association, Of twenty-five
cents per bale upon all cotton placed in
their yards, whether handled in the full
sense of the term or not
California is building street cars with