New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-11-17
THE COURTS.

l
tho succession Of Beringier was rendered ID
the Second District Court.
The heirs Of John Slidel were put in DOS
session Of the estate Of tho deceased.
The former Judgment annulling the pro
tended will Of Anna Maria Schneider wa
maintained.
In the sixth District Court, suit i.
brought by H. Felbrath against the Liver
pool, London and Globe Insurance Com.
pany for this: That the company answered
. suit brought BY the petitioner for policy
OF insurance on bis property destroyed, BY
setting up that he had willfully caused the
fire, with the view Of dsffauding the com.
Pany: Hence the suit at present claims in
jury by the answer to the amount Of tan
th0nsand dollars damages to character.
ss.s The opinion %;dsa.. Of Judge Collens, Of the
Of tho Canal Bank against Stewart e.
Richardson in favor Of tho bank. Tho suit
was brought for . balance of $500 in an
account of deposits kept in the usual run of
business with the firm. A check for $500,
and indOrsed, was, in this account, charged
| to the defendants. To the indorsers. Huger
and Bein, the firm sus d loaued this check,
receiving their own in exchange. Subse-
quently they directed tho bank not to pay
the check 40 the indorsers were in failing
circumstances. Notwithstanding defend.
ants' check, at the usual hour for settling
balances, was sent to the Crescent City
Bank and marked accordingly. From Story
on Promissory Notes, p. AS; Kent vol. 3,
p. IS, 4th. ed; Morse ON Banks and Bank
ing. p. N8., Judge Collens deduced certain
principles applicable to tho case in point.
and concludes - follows:
The revocation Of the banker or other
agents authority to pay neither increases
nor diminishes, nor does it extinguish the
obligation of the drawer whatever it may
be. Hence the only consequence Of such .
revocation is that the drawer or principal,
if. indeed, he is lawfully indebted or liable,
must, in proper person, make the payment,
since he will not allow his agent to do 10
for him.
If then the liability of defendants to the
Crescent City Bank was not impaired,
changed or extinguished by the revocation
of the bankers authority to pay, what 10 the
effect Of the payment inadvertently made
by the PLAINTIFF I Arc the plaintiffs to profit
by thisi Are they to be put in better and
more advantageous situation than they
would have been. had their agent been more
tions. and refused to pay the check to the
Crescent City Bank9 I think not; for while
that payment ought not to make their con.
diti0n worse, it ought not, according to the
equitable principles expressly enacted in
the Civil Code, work an improvement o"
their condition, and enable them to make
their agent suffer q loss which they would
otherwise have been obliged to incur. As it
ia unjust that they should be damaged by
an act which they forbade, 80 it is incon-
sistent that they should reap advantages
from an act which they repudiate.
The PLAINTIFF action IL an equitable one,
and article 1860 should be applied in the
case. It makes the Christian principles OF
equity part of our law, and declares that
mo one ought to enrich himself at the ex-
pense of another"
during the argument, can not effect this
case, because the PLAINTIFF did not act in
form or intention, according to the terms of
that article. They did not propose to dis
charge detendants' obligation to the Cres-
cent City Bank, or to acquire an action |
against the defendants. The payment and |
Of the check was accidental. 1t |
was effected in q moment of inattenti0n, |
such as will sometimes happen to the most
ferred to can hardly ever take effect in re- |
gard to commercial paper which passes |
from one holder to the other, BY mere in |
dorsement or delivery, without discharging |
the parties, but, on the contrary, validly |
'changing the creditor"
Judgment for plaintiffs as prayed for. and |
rejecting defendants demand in reconven-
ton.
w. L. McMillen sues for mandamus on !
the Treasurer, commanding, In case of ito
being granted, the payment 11 c1 s1s
rule nisi issues for the Treasurer to comply
or show cause on the twenty-6rst Of No
vember. According to the body of the
yer for mandamus, "these warrants are |
fOr the payment of the contingent expenses
IF the General Assembly," and are drawn
lpOn and payable out of an extra apprO-
,riation Of $l25, 900 made by the Assembly
n the last session. The petition states it
9 made the duty Of the Treasurer to pay
unds in the treasury.
Suit has been entered against the State
printing commissioners, praying for q writ
# mandamus against the defendants com
handing them to sign the printing bill of
he plaintiffs, Messrs. p. Hartman and
William Murrell, of the Lafourche Times.
The answer Of the city to the suit Of the
;rescent City Waterworks Company denies
hat the company is organized under any
cts vas not constitutionally passed. But
ven if true that the law is constitutionally
assed, it is q violation of section ten, ar
icle one of the constitution of the United
tates. 1t is answered that the city is the
wner of the Waterworks, and has legal ,
tile to tho same. The prayer 10 for dis
olution of the injunction.
The city has applied for an appeal in the
nit of the Lottery Company against the ,
ity where an Injunction restraining the
ity from proceeding against the agents of
10 company for not paying license was
lade perpetual by the court.
Another suit, similar to the action of
00k, dismissed by the court, has been 4
rought. This is by Michael Gernon. who
kewise sues for the nu]lity Of the registered
arrant judgment.
nited staees Circuit Ceurt-Jadse Durell.
The Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company
as filed suits in this court for infringement
patent against James w. Dalrymple,
iehard s. Calves, Brady & McCraw,