New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-21
THE COURTS,
Supreme Court of Louisiana-Decision by
Judge Taliaferro.

In the case of Brenner & Ranlett Vs. J
Il. Michel and =. Gallagher. Ill which al
appeal was taken from the decision Of III,
Second Judicial District Court, parish o
jefferson. Judge Taliaferro has rendered
the following opinion sustaining the decis
ion rendered by that tribunal
The defendants are sued for two Thousand
dollars a damages alleged to have beef
sustained by the plaintiffs from the illega
seizure and sale, under execution. by de
feEdants, of the property of the plaintiffs
The answer Is general denial. Plaintiff
had Judgment for one thousand dollars anC
defendants have appealed.
Gallagher having obtained a judgment
against b. 7. Hughes. caused execution t.
issue. and the Sheriff. Michel, seized as pro
perty OF Hughes the contents of a drug
store in the City of Jefferson, at the corner
of Magazine and Jena streets. and after an
inventory and appraisement of the effects
seized and advertisement made. sold the en-
tire stock for Sl63. 1t is in proof that
after the seizure was made the Sheriff
was distinctly Informed by Bremen, one Of
the plaintiffs, that the property seized did
not belong 10 Hughes. but 10 himself and
BaRlett. The defendants show that the
contents OF the drug store were under the
control of Hughes, who held himself out 10
the world as the owner: that lie kept the
establishment made sale OF the drugs, and
was considered the owner. They contend
that tie plaintiffs claim owners is siInu-
lated and set NJ to screen the property OF
Hughes from the pursuit of hi. creditors.
Ii appears from the evidence that. III the
latter part Of the year 1865. and in the
early part of lsG6 this apUthecary estab
lishment belonged To a DR.. HvHe. who
during the time he left it. had Hughes en-
ploved as d clerk: that Hyue sold the estab-
li-hment to Ranlctt at the price of $l7CO
i d. Il.
appears by the receipt of Hrne. dated
March Il. 1866 An instrument Is in evil
,dence dated March II. 1866, and signed by
Ranlett and Hughes, the purpOrt OF which
l. that they were to carry on the drug and
apOthecary business in the City of Jeffer-
son: that il was to be carried ON in the
name of b. f. Hughes, who was to keep the
accounts and render a full statement of
affairs at the end Of each month. and paw
over 10 Ranlctt such sum OF money as might
be on hand after deducting the expenses of
carrying Oh the business.
Ranlett was 10 buy the stock in trade of
Hyne, the profits and losses to be equally
divided. The seizure was made on the
ninth of August, 1861. On the nineteenth of
June previous an estimative inventory of
the stock OF drugs on hand was made. and
as stated the value of the drugs was set
down according TO wholesale prices, the AZ
gregate amount being SllO3. Hughes testi-
fies that between the time of the making
the inventory and the seizure there was
sold an amount between so and 800. The
SLeriff's inventory and estimate seem TO
have been made carelesSly, and the drugs
set down at about what the appraisers
Judged they would be likely 10 bring al an
auction sale.
The fact that the plaintiffs permitted
Hughes to hold himself out TO the world
a. the owner Of the establishment would.
according TO well established principles.
involve a responsibility To persons giving
him credit on the faith Of the pretended
ownership. Still, under the facts shown
III this ease. we think DO liability results
against them.
This Judgment Of Gallagher against
Hughes arose from debt contracted Jointly
by the latter ana one Spaun before Hughes
had anything TO do with the drug store
The defendants were notified that the prop
erty they had seized belonged to the plain
tits, but they proceeded, notwithstanding
TO sell it, and consequently the sale was
made at their peril.
The evidence. we think. sufficiently shows /
that the plaintiffs were the owners of the (
property sold. Hughes was destitute of |
means. That Ranlett paid the whole price |
of the stock purchased from DR.. Hyne there .
can be no doubt The statements Of Ran /
lett and Hughes. in connection with tho re- /
.ceipt OF Hyne, make this clear, and the /
tenor of the contract between Ranlett and 4
Hughes cOrrOborates their statements under |
oath as to the ownership of their stock in .
trade. If Hughes were to participate in the .
profits, it does not follow that there was a /
community Of interest il the property IL
self The contrary. we think, is estab- I
lished.
In estimating the value of the plaintiffs
property sold, we are inclined to adopt the
opinion of the. judge q qltO, who assumed
the valuation made shortly before the
seizure as more reliable than the evidently
vague appraisement made at the time of
the sale. Deducting 800, the amount sold
after the first appraisement or valuation.
from SllOO, he gave judgment for $1,000.
and we think correctly.
1t is therefore ordered, adjudged and de-
creed, that the judgment of the District
Court be affirmed with costs.
Sixth District Court.
Louis Z. Reynolds has entered suit against"
the Sugar Shed Company 10 recover S44OO
for services in drawing plans, specifications,
and for the erection of the sheds Of said
He alleges that. according to
contract, he was TO receive two and a half
per cent on the cost of the buildings. which,
to S2l00o0, entities him to $1,000.
OF this sum he has been paid $1,000. leaving
unpaid Sl400, as aforesaid, and demand
having been refused. suit Is brought to re-
cover.
Fifth District Court.
William Leslie, an attorney at law, Is the
defendant in a suit before this court. in
which Jean Mac seeks to recover from him |
certain moneys. which. it is alleged. Leslie
Is retaining without any legal cause OF
right
United States Circuit Court.
There was no business Of moment before
the court yesterday. Cases came up for
continuation: papers We're withdrawn from
records applications for supersedeas were
made or passed on: in fact Saturday in the
courts has some affinity to Saturday in the
household. A great many small things are
attended to, and there Is general setting
TO rights.
Commissioner WeIIer's Court.
As a rule, it is of no public interest I.
publish the multitudinous suits brought by {
crews Of vessels against their employers !
In majority Of cases these suits are utterly {
is, tho money claimed may
be owing, but the vessel is perfectly willing {
to pay. II frequently happens tnat d half
hours waiting when the clerk Is busy would
settle the claim. but the impatient hand"
rushes of to the court, where he finds he
-an get a judgment for his claim, but must
pay costs for want Of amicable demand.
1t very often happens, however that he
has reason to congratulate himself on hav-
ng brought his case before Commissioner !
Weller. who l. extremely lenIent in enforc-
NJ the payment, and often lets the paurJe !
iiuJie 20 clear. This was the case vester- :
lay. where one of the crew of the Bannock ,
City sued the boat for three dollars. the :
amount due him being two dollars and !
ninety cents. In other words, this advocate !
OF sailors rights" sued, and caused no !