New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-25

thirty days in case of nonpavment, til
policy issued is declared to be forfeited
After this forfeiture twenty days more ar
given to the insured party to the end tina
he may adduee good and sufficient reason
explanatory of the nOnpayment of the as
sessment; and it is provided that if the as
SoclatlOn deem the reasons good and valid
the insured will he reinstated in all hi
rights under the policy of insurance.
In this case the five days notice wer
given as required. The thirty days afte
the termination of the five days also expired
and no payment of the assessment called
for was made by Mrs. Thompson. Her rep
resentatives i'll the present suit attempt Il
explain why the payment was not made By
her within the thirty days required by tht
policy of insurance.
Ii is immaterial to pass upon the question
whether or not the reason adduced was
sufficient and valid one, because under the
( terms of the contract between Mrs. ThOmp
son and the insurance association the only
reason which could rehabilitate her in hel
I rights under the policy originally issued
should have been presented by her to the
consideration of the association within
| twenty days after the expiration OF
the first thirty days. Her legal rep.
show within that time to the associ-
| ationy any good reason why Mrs. Thomp-
son did not pay the assessment imposed
upon her, do not think they can now. in
the present suit, show any reason whatever.
Whether that reason would be a good and
valid one or not, in my Judgment it comes
too late. The contract in relation to that
point must be strictly interpreted. for it is
at best but a g lance which is allowed to the
insured, with view TO reinstate himself in
rights which his own negligence had caused
to be forfeited.
Considered in that light it would be I'M
fair and unjust to the insurance association
to extend that faculty in favor of the in
sured beyond the length of time which the
contract or policy of insurance itself gives
There must be judgment in favor of defend
ant.
Fourth District Court.An Injunction sus-
tanned.
In. the suit of Maurice N. Bowman VS..
Mrs. Sophie Boutron and Sheriff Sauvinet,
which has been pending before the Fourth
District Court for some time. Judge Theard
has rendered decision sustaining the in
junction prayed for by petitioner The
plaintiff, Bowman, is the owner of the house
situated at the corner of Common and
Basin streets, and he also owns the turni-
ture IN the same. The house is occupied by
one Hattie Hamilton, and serves a purpose
which. as it has no bearing on the case, it
will not be necessary TO mention Hattie.
1t appears, is indebted to Mrs. Sophie Bou-
iron, who, by virtue of writ of execution,
had the furniture in the house seized by the
Sheriff. In order to prevent the Sheriff from
selling the furniture, which, it appears is
owned by Bowman, suit was brought, and
an injunction was granted.
Second District Court-Important Deci.
sion Touching the Sale of Hereditary
Rights.
D. k. Carroll vs.. Harriet Forbes ct al
The plaintiff in this suit D. r. Carroll. as
the successor and liquidator of the late firm
OF ID. K. Carroll Il Co, has filed petitiOn
as intervenOr in the succession of Mrs John
Alexander, claiming to be subrogated TO
the rights, title and interest of John ID. G..
Quirk in said succession.
John ID. &. Quirk was married to Rosalia
Alexander, daughter of Mrs John AIexan
der: child was born from said marriage;
Rosalla died, leaving that only child, who
died, leaving for her only heir
her father, John ID. G. Quirk
On the first of November, 1861. the said
J. ID. G. Quirk, being indebted to an amount
not ascertained at that time. to the firm of
d. K. Carroll & Co, did give them trans
fer OF his rights, title and interest in the
of Mrs. John Alexander, in the
words:
New ORLEANS, November |. 1861
Being indebted unto d. X. Carroll & Co. |
IN sum exceeding three thousand dollars. |
and being DESTROYS to secure to them what |
ever may owe them upon a settlement of |
accounts hereby transfer, sell and assign
% them all my rights, title and interest in |
md TO the succession of Mary Ann Will
hanson Alexander of which succession |
I'M an heir having inherited from nv
hid, who was the grandchild of the said
drs. Mary Alexander, and who died subse-
Iuently to her and to her mother
j. ID. G. QUIRK.
j. ID. G. Quirk having died since without
ny other heirs. collateral direct or as
endant, except his mother, Mrs Mary C.
pulrk, she being duly seized in law. do
ated said share OF her son in tIe succes.
ion of Mrs. John Alexander to the minor
hid. Lille May Quirk, daughter by first
larriage of Mrs. Sallie Devine with An
rev Quirk
In answer to this demand of petitioner.
lrs. Sallie Deyine. mother and tutrix of
he minor, Lille May Quirk, first excerpts.
n the ground that the Intervention comes
20 late; that the judgment of this court as
} the ownership of said interest is res judi.
'!a' and can net be changed or altered in
lis form of action.
That said judgment can now only be re-
ewed on appeal; should said exception be
'erruled. then defendant pleads the gen
al denial: and, further, that if said sue
'sslon rights were ever transferred to op-
onent and Juterreun-which is expressly
anied-that it is not legal and binding,
III was only as security for some tempora.
purpose, and that no consideration there
T ever passed, or if any passed, it was in /
Iequate and far below One-half of its real
llue, and she further pleads prescription
one, two, three, four, five and ten and ,
venty years. +
The legal question in this case must be di-
ded into two branches
l. Is the document under which the inter
nor claims his right to share as an heir in
e succession of Mrs. John Alexander, a
lie under the law of Louisiana
,. In case this first branch of the question
decided atfirmativcly, has the vendor
implied with the formalities required by
W to make such sale good and valid as :
CARDS third parties ,
II IS clearly established by the document
elf that the transfer was intended to Sc
re the payment of q debt due by the
,nsferrer, j. ID. G. Quirk, to d. r. Car !
II & Co., which Indebtedness was not vet a
rertaned as to its amount at the time of a
transfer; this, in my opinion, does not !;
Institute sale. Article 2439 told Code) q
VS.: The price of the sale must be GER t
n; that is to say, fixed and determined by
. parties In this instance we have fur +
er testimony introduced by the party T.
nself, which explains fully the nature Of 4
: transaction. John E. Mclean, for d
r partner of the firm of d. r. Carroll & a a,
=. says in his testimony that the transfer
'de by Quirk to the firm of D. r. Carroll
20, was a security to pay us what he
,ed us" That was the object of it." Con -
lerlng the article of the Code above y
oted. we can not view this transfer under
y oiner hight than pledge made by the
IS. JOnn AleXanHnr An Lernl; to ~ ,.nlr 4