New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-06-16
THE COURTS.
supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sunrcme
In the following cases, decided by the
Supreme Court OF the State, Justice Brad
lev. of the Supreme Court of the United
States. has granted writs of error:
Solomon e. Simpson, Assignees of j. O.
Nixon, ex rel State of Louisiana, vs. james
Graham, Auditor-The State of Louisiana
intervenor.-The petitioners, in praying fol
writ of error, represent that final decree
was rendered by the Supreme Court Of
Louisiana against petitioners whereby they
are deprived of their right to receive
$50,331 46; that they are by said
Judgment irreparably injured and aggrieved
and that they are advised and believe, that
there is manifest error of law and wrong
therein to their prejudice and rights, and
that said Judgment is in violation of section
number two, article one of the constitution
of the United States; that they are DESTROYS
of having said judgment revised, reviewed
and corrected by the Supreme Court of the
United States by writ of error, upon their
complying with the requisites, conditions
and stipulations of law in such cases made
and provided, ard giving bond as the court
NAV order and to its satisfaction.
Wherefore petitioners pray the court to
grant them writ OF error, returnable to
the Supreme Court of the United States at
it's next term in Washington, District of
to law and as the court may direct, con-
ditioned as the law directs, and that the
due and proper notices. citations and SER
vices be made thereof on the defendant
and the intervenor, or their counsel of re-
cord, according to law, and for all general
and equitable relief. .a l.-r 1867 -..t
Upon these representations, Judge Brad
lev issued the following order: .t s-r
A writ of error is allowed in this case as
prayed for and according to law, return
able to the Supreme Court of the United
States on the first Monday of December
next, at Washington, d. C., the petitioner
giving bond in the sum of one thousand
dollars, with good and solvent security,
conditioned as the law directs.
Thomas j. Burke vs. Louis Tregre, third
opposition and Injunction of Alphonse Mil
tenberger-The petition of Thomas j.
Burke, resident of the parish of st. John
the Baptist, shows that on the nineteenth of
Nav, 1870, final judgment was rendered
against him by the Supreme Court of
Louisiana, being the highest court of law
of the State of Louisiana, in which a
decision could be had in certain suit in
which the said Thomas j. Burke was
plaintiff and appellent, and Louis Ire
gre. defendant. and Alphonse Milten-
berger, third opponent and appellee,
wherein was drawn in question certain i'm
munities, rights and privileges claimed by
the plaintiff, Thomas j. Burke, under the
constitution and statutes of the United
States, and that he is agrieved by the said
final Judgment, and is advised that there is
error therein to his prejudice, and is de-
sirous that the same only be re-examined
by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Upon these representations, Justice
Bradley allowed a writ of error, as prayed
for. -.t1.e
C. C. Sampson Vs. NJ. ellis and Samuel
G. Ferguson.-The petition of Mrs. Hannah
H. Sampson, widow of C. G.. Sampson, de-
ceased, respectfully represents that her late
husband, Calvin G.. Sampson, a resident of
the citv of New Orleans, brought suit
against NJ ellis and Samuel G. Ferguson,
residing in the city of New Orleans, and
lately doing business therein as commercial
copartners under the name and style of
ellis e. Ferguson, ON a draft dated New
Orleans, November l6, 1861, and payable
six months after date, for the sum of
$l26S "A, with eight per cent interest
from maturity, drawn by Samuel
G.. Ferguson on and accepted by
ellis g. Ferguson; that it was alleged in
said petition, filed by her husband, that
said NJ. ellis and Samuel G. Ferguson LETT
the city of New Orleans and went into the
lines of the so-called Confederate States,
where they remained until about the tenth
of August, 1865, and petitioner was unable
ing said time, most of which facts are
shown by the defendants answers to inter-
rogatories, especially their absence in the
so-caIled Confederate States lines for sew.
eral years, and one of them in the Con-
federate States service. @sE.H.-..
Petitioner further represents that said
suit was brought in the Sixth District Court
of the parish of Orleans on the twenty
third of June, 1868, and citations issued on
Il no fUp do nf
June, 1868, and that petitioners husband,
c. G. Sampson, died in August 1868, and
petitioner, after having been duly recog-
nized as widow in community with her
said husband and natural tutrix of her
minor children by the Second District Court
for the parish of Orleans, applied to the
honorable Sixth District Court for the
parish of Orleans and became party plain
tiff in said suit in place and stead Of her de-
ceased husband.
Petitioner further represents that the said
defendants filed plea of prescription in
the Sixth District Court in bar of petition
ers suit, which plea of prescription was
sustained by said court and Judgment rem
dered in favor of said defendants and
against petitioner, with costs, and on ap-
peal the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana also sustained the plea of pre-
scription which had been set up by said de-
PENDANTS in defense of petitioners action,
and affirmed the judgment of the said Sixth
District Court, which said Judgment has be-
come final. s..-..s
Petitioner further represents that she
claimed in said suit an exemption from the
laws of the State of Louisiana upon the
subject of prescription during the late re-
bellion under and by virtue of the act OF
Congress entitled ''an act in relation to the
limitation of certain actions," approved
June IL, 1864. That the Supreme Court of
the State of Louisiana, under the facts of
the case, the defendant having been in the
States in rebellion and petitioner residing in
New Orleans, within the federal lines, could
not have decided against petitioner, except
by violation of the rights secured to
plaintiff by said act OF Congress.
That petitioner has been Illegally de-
prived of right secured to her by said act
of Congress- which was specially set up and
urged BY her before the Supreme Court of
the State of Louisiana.
Petitioner further alleges that there was
manifest error IN the said decision of the
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana,
which will work to her irreparable injury,
unless she can be relieved therefrom by
writ of error to the Supreme Court of the
State of Louisiana.
Upon these representations writ of error
was allowed as prayed for. .f tu
In the case of Charles Case, receiver of
the First National Bank of Louisiana VS..
Richard Taylor, which, on the tenth of
April last, was decided by the Supreme
Court of Louisiana in favor of defendant,
writ OF error was refused by Justice
Bradley. -
Eighth District Court-ImpOrtant Decision
Touching the Liability of ProprietOrs
of Front Real Estate for Street Inn
provements-MOtiOn for n New Trial in
the Case of Esnard VS.. the City-The