New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-01-10
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.


The supreme Court was in session yes
terday, and delivered the following deeis-
ions:
Alexander Norton vs. David Jamisols-
Appeal from the Sixth District Court, parish
Of Orleans.-AssOciate Justice Howeh rem
dered an opinion in this important suit yes
terday in which was involved the naagpi-
fieent property of Mr.. Jamison, on Canal
street, formerly belonging to II. X. W. Hill.
In the words OF the Judge. in summing mp,
the seizure of the property was eniOined on
several grounds, only one of which we
think it necessary to consider, tO-wit: That
there is no judicial mortgage affecting his
property. because II. Il. W. Hills surety
was dead long before the Judgment against
his claimants and sureties was rendered,
and the suit was not revived as to his legal
representative and heir, j. Dick Hill, and
the inscription does affect the property of
the defendant.
This, we think, ia a correct legal PROPOSE
ton. If defendant die after issue Joined,
his heir should be cited; until this be done
Judgment can not be given against the sue
cession. n. s.. 43l. A judgment against
one who, though cited, died before issue
joined, is null 8 A., so. When II. X. w.
Hill died, it was necessary TO make his legal
representative q party, otherwise the iudg-
ment was imperative as to either, and the
recording of it created no judicial mortgage
Ou ttlb DtbpSIlF ACAl Wy ~ ARs W. AAbA
The fiction Of law or its express enact
ment, by which be was party to the pro-
ceedings, did not make his heirs or legal
representatives parties to his person, and
tho insertion of the word "heirs" in the
decree gave no force to the judgment
against his heir and legatee, any more than
judgment against any person 60 nomine,
who Il not cited The subsequent appear
ance of j. ID. Hill as a party to the pro-
IN nrIar tp g1 fspy ba (tipruit
to the Supreme Court, may have made him
personally liable under the Judgment rem
dered on appeal. but it could not retroact so
as to give force to the inscription of the
Judgment of the District Court Inscrip-
tions of mortgages are strict juris, and must
of themselves be complete, and give all the
information which the law intends ia neces-
sary for third parties, . n. s., III;
: A., 5t3.
The judgment recorded was against II. Il.
W. Hill, but plaintiff alleges that FL, K. W.
Hill died before the Judgment was rem
dered, aud claims that its inscription
affected the property of j. ID. Hill. But the
inscription does not contain the name OF j.
ID. Hill. At the time of the rendering of
the Judgment against IL. K. w. Hill the
property in question did not belong to him,
and no Judgment against j. ID. Hill was re-
corded at the date of his sale to defendant.
Consequently no judicial mortgage attached
to the property sold by j. ID. Hill to the de-
fendant by recording the judgment in ques-
tion against II. Il. ". Hill rendered after
his death.
1t is therefore ordered that the judgment
appealed from be reversed and that there
be Judgment in favor of David JamisOn,
pcrpetuating the injunction herein, with
costs.
II. P. Smith Vi. City of New Orleans. Ap.
peal from the Sixth District Court Of New
nV1a rn,,Is 4,
dered an opinion in this case yesterday, af-
irming, in the main, the decision OF the
lower court in favor of plaintiff.
This suit was brought upon twenty-six
written or printed Instruments, each pur-
porting to be an obligation of the city.
twenty-five of so each, and one OF $40, and
are of that class OF currency known as "city
money! On each is the Endorsement
This note is issued in exchange for notes
of the city OF New Orleans of smaller de-
nominations, under and by virtue of Ordi-
| nance No. 62j0, approved October ~ 1864,
and is receivable for all debts due the city
of New Orleans, and for the redemption of
the same the real estate of the city is
pledged" The plaintiff also claimed inter
est ON the aforesaid sum FROM the first day
Of January, 1860.
The defendant repudiated, on several
grounds, and denied any indebtedness to
plaintiff. His answer declares that the sup
posed writings obligatory were not executed
by him; that no agent of his now or ever
had the power or right to execute the same,
and if signed by the persons whose names
are affixed, such signing is unauthorized
That the defendant himself is without
power or legal right to issue the instruments
in question, and, a tOrtiOri, could not dele
gate such right to its officers or agents.
That these supposed obligations are in forTl
bills of credit, aAd null and void by section
ta., FNRN NhnE ktaIa g r
the United States, which declares among
the enumerated powers withheld THAI no
State shall coin money or emit bills of
credit. The answer denied that defendants
had been btit IN mora by demand previous
to the institution of the suit.
The court in alluding to the authority of
the city to issue these bills, refers to the
'act OF twenty-seventh of February, 1869,
to enable the city 10 fund it's floating debt
by issue of $4,000, 900 of bonds to be given
in exchange for city notes, and says that ii
the city had not been empowered before to
issue these notes. it thought this law of
twentyseyenth of February ratified the
act"
The principal question, adds the court, is,
are the instruments in question bills of credit
within the meaning and intention of section
ten of the first article of the constitution of
the United States, and, therefore, null and
void. The court here quotes at length
recognized definition of bills of credit as
the term is used in the constitution of the
United States, quoting, at the outset, from
III Peters Reports, page 426, and closing as
follows: Hence it is by the organic law
that the State may, within circumscribed
limits, authorize the issuing of bills of
credit, while it is Incompetent for them to
exercise that power in their own names and
on their own credit.
After discussing points raised as to the
city being an integral part OF the State, and
vested with portion of its sovereignty,
and that no one can delegate greater powers
than it possesses, the court says Instances
in which the power granted to public cor
pOratiOns to issue bills of credit are fire.
quent, and the legality of their exercise of
the power seems not TO be questioned. and
quotes from 80 Barbour, 522 decision of
tho Supreme Court of the State of New
York. The court also quoted from the case
of Moran VS.. Commissioners of Miami
county, 2 Blacks Reports page 729; also 81
Howard, $50, and q Howard, 3S. The
court also held for reasons given that the
defendant was not put in delay The judg-
ment of the lower court was reversed 90 far
as the recovery Of interest from the first of
january, 1869, aud Judgment given in favor
Of plaintiff with interest from judicial de-
mand.
Charles +. Lex and Wife vs.. Southern
Express Company.-Appeal from the Fifth
District Court Of New 0rleans.-By Asao-
eiate Justice Howe.--Jndgmont affirmed
with costs, aud with fifty dollars damages.
David j.. Elder "a. Stevenson e. May
Appeal from the Fourth District Court Of
Rev Orleans.-By Associate Justice Talia-
ferrO.-Judgment OF the lower court
affirmed, With costs.