New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-14

q i 81 " y, ! ! ~ Z
N ~ a Is = - = ltSsits
aeainso qupa = hD1 II appoaly ~ n
I.oekers Wbteh fAeY or6 6ounA 81 law g ~
|,ooivo q exnst 6e0 appellants and adninis.
traterl, tutoes, curat0r6 and oxecutors eon-
Usder - kw = il nov sta.ds, it Is thsre.
fore clear that this suit should have been
Neither does the eighty-third article of the
constitution give any other couSt jurisdic.
ton. True, that article gives this court
jurisdiction in all civil cases when the sum
| in contest 10 above one hundred dollars, but
from this general rule ''probate" cases are
expressly excepted, and the same article
vests the Second District Court with exclu-
sive probate Jurisdiction.
Hence, the only question upon which the
rights of this court to take cOgnizance Of
this suit depends, is this: Is q suit on .
tutors bond probate matteri On gen.
| eral principles, and in the absence of any
| Negative law, it would seem that such =
proceeding would be necessarily incidental
| to the exercise of probate Jurisdiction; but
whatever doubts may have once existed,
they are removed by the above quoted ex-
iation defining that probate jurisdiction in
| cludes such suits.
The power of the Legislature soto include
and define them can not, think, be seri-
Ously disputed; for besides the general
power of the Legislature to declare what
is probate, the present subject matter itself
logically flows into such Jurisdiction. The
decisions of the Supreme Court, which might
seem to conflict with this view, were rem
dered before the enactment of the statutes
quoted above, and ut q time when
the law contained negative provi-
eiOns against the exercise of juris-
liction by the probate courts in such cases.
These negative provisions have been re-
pealed, and the affirmative substituted.
The clause ''Or in thoee (cases) specified
and determined by law, which is now found
in article 925 of the new Code, was not con-
tanned in the Code of 1925; and article 1854 of
Rays Digest is a repetition Of an old statute
passed expressly to settle the question of
the exclusive Jurisdiction of the probate
court.
1t is therefore ordered, adjudged and de-
creed that this suit be dismissed for want of
Jurisdiction, ,,atiOnc matcrie, and that plain
tiff be condemned to pay the costs.
Cnieed States District Court, Hon. e. HI.
Durell. District Judge, Presiding.
Heirs of Minor vs.. the Bank of New Or
1eans.-In this case the plaintiffs sued the
Bank Of New Orleans for the sum of
twenty thousand dollars, which sum arose
out Of the purchase by connection of
plaintiffs of certain checks and drafts at
Nashville, Tennessee, during the civil war,
sent to the Bank Of New Orleans for col
lection. These checks and drafts were re-
ceipted for by the then president Of the
bank, in a letter duly forwarded to and re-
ceived by the proper party. The checks
and drafts in question were collected in
Confederate money by the bank, and
placed on its books to the credit of the
party interested.
In l665in answer to q demand, the bank
offered payment in Confederate money.
This money was refused, and suit entered
in one Of the district courts, in which suit
plaintiffs recovered. The bank appealed to
the Supreme Court. On a hearing, Justice
Taliaferro read the Judgment Of the court
reversing the decision of the district court,
and dismissing the case, on the ground that
the transaction taking place within the Con-
federate lipes. and the Confederate money
being illegal, the whole affair was illegal,
and there could be NO recovery.
The original plaintiff in this suit having
died, the heirs brought suit before the
United States Court, and on Wednesday
Judge Durell rendered decision in favor
of plaintiffs, holding the bank was liable
because the money received by the bank
for the drafts and checks was not in their
possession, and that they could not eubsti-
tute other Confederate money to replace it.
Com.nissiener weller's Court.
The only case before the commissioner
yesterday was one of damages for the
sum of seventy five dollars brought by
the steamer Lulu ID. against the steamer
Carrie Converse. The commissioner de-
clined to entertain the case as having no
jurisdiction, but consented to arrange the
matter as umpire between the parties in
order to save them the costs of litigation in
q higher court. The evidence showed the
plaintiff had not proper tenders at her
guards, by which the damage could have
been diminished. Uuder the circumstances
it was adjudged that the Carrie Converse
pay to complainant the sum of thirty dol
lars. The award was somewhat sullenly
acquiesced in and the money paid, neither.
party being perfectly satisfied. 1t would
be, perhaps, advantageous for dabblers in
small suits, were the commissioner to have
q jurisdiction in cases similar to the above,
where the damages. would be. limited to
sums under one hundred dollars.
Miscellaneous.
Mr.. John A. Walsh has obtained o judg-
ment against the Ship Island Company, in
the Sixth District Court; for $35, COO.
The names Of the purchasers of the Maya
zine Street railroad are Messrs TheOdor
judi and John Kaiser. r. King Cutler has
taken rule in the Seventh District Court
to ascertain who are the real purchasers.