New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-25

al: - ! & : : -
: $eSes.ine = refused in tho cases Of Tset-
eene r.. ouccessiOn Of Hamper, Aillett W.
Woods, and Wynn Va. Pat<ick.
Xrnand LeBourgeois 70. Emma LeBour.
from the District Court, parish Of st. James.
Judgment reversed. Howe, j.
N. Kaufman f. Co. w. William Golding.--'
Appeal from the Seventh District Court,
parish of Orleans. Judgment affirmed, with
ten per cent damages Howe, j.
Alexander Mckee for use, ETC., vs. VII
liam H. Brown. Appeal from the Fifth Dis
trlct Court, parish of Orleans. The only
question involved in this case, is the con-
struction of the following clauses In para
graph twelve, section seven, OF the cna ,etsz
Of the late City Of Jefferson, act OF 1901
p. Ill. :.
When the proprietors of land fronting on
any public street or avenue comprising
one-fourth of the front on said street shall
petition the Council therefor. the Council
shall cause the streets to De opened
widened or improved, with banquettes,
sidewalks, shell or plank roads, or paved
streets, il, after thirty days notice, ma
iority, similarly constituted of front prop
ertv owners, shall not object thereto.
It was decided by the cOu9t qMa. that
the prOprietOrs OF One-fOurth Of the land
fronting on portion Of the street in such
a way as to compel the cohncil to improve
a portion only, and force the proprietOrs OF
the three-fOurths fronting. on the same pOr-
ton to contribute. Judgment reversed.
Howe, j.
Babbitt GOOde & Co. VS.. the Sun Mutual
Insurance Company-Appeal from the
Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans. Ac-
ton upon river policy OF insurance on
seventy-five hogsheads of sugar, at and
boat Mars, dated April 10, 1861. The an
swer admits the execution of the policy,
denies that the plain:iffs owned or were in
terested in the property involved, and de-
MED generally the liability of the defendant.
There was Judgment for plaintiffs and de-
PENDANT appealed. Judgment affirmed
Howe, j.
George Hubener, ETC., vs. the New Orleans
and Carrollton railroad. ct al.Appeal from
the Sixth District Court, parish of Orleans.
Action tor damages alleged to have been
caused by carelessness Of defendants in
running over the child of plaintiff, aged
eight years, and cutting off one Of his legs.
This cease was tried before a jury in the
Sixth District Court, and resulted in a YER
dict and judgment for plaintiff, George
Hubener. as natural guardian of the child,
for $500, and in his own right for $500.
Appeal by the defendants. Judgment ap
pealed from reversed, and verdict set aside.
Howe, j.
A. Marchand vs.. H. T. Coffin and Wallace
& Co.-Appeal from the Seventh District
Court, parish of Orleans. Ordered, the
former decree in this case, as to Wallace T.
Co., be set aside, that the Judgment against
them be reversed, and the cause be re;
manded as to them, to. be proceeded with
according to law. Howell, j.
d. g. J. d. Edwards vs.. w. c. Harrison
ct als.Appcal from the Fourth District
Court, parish of Orleans Judgment IT.
]. r. Jones VS.. c. j. Jones and j. Levois
: Co-Appeal from the Fourth District
Court, parish of Orleans. Ordered, that
the judgment herein against j. LevOis, ap-
pellant, he reversed, and the cause re-
handed to the lower court, to he proceeded
with according to law. Howell, j.
H. Budinski VS.. Spalding Bidwell & Nc
Decentralization to dismiss appeal. Mo-
ton refused. Howell, j.
Heirs of Wenlerln Doll VS.. James Kath-
man-Appeal from the Seventh District
Court for the parish Of Orleans. The plain
tiffs sue to recover certain real estate in
New Orleans, alleging that the defendant
Il lin possession, and illegally withholds it
from them. The defendant denies that the
plaintiffs have any rights to it, and sets up
title to the property in himself, averring
that he bought it at. q private sale of the
succession of the plaintiffs father, Wender-
lin Doll. The Judgment of the court a qua
was in favor of the defendant Judgment
affirmed. Howell, j.
Thomas henderson and Peale vs. James
A. Jackson-Appeal from the Fourth Dis
trict Court. Judgment affirmed Howell, j.
p. DuclOs & Co. vs.. Citizens Mutual In
surance COmpany-Appeal from the Third
District Court parish Of Orleans. The plain
tiffs sue on policy Of insurance, to recover
from defendants $3,958 IL, the proportional
amount claimed to be due by the company
under the policy for losses alleged to have
been sustained by fire to the extent of
$l3, 432. The answer is a general denial.
The defendants further allege that the pol
icy sued on is null and void by its cOndi-
tons, the plaintiffs having taken a
policy on the same risk with the Star
Mutual Insurance Company without no
tice thereof to defendants, in violation
of an express stipulation in the policy
that Gin case the insured shall have
already any other insurance against loss by
fire on the property hereby insured not mott
fed to this corporation, and not mentioned
in, or Endorsed Upon this policy, this in
surance shall be void and of no effect: and
if the said insured or their assigns shall
hereafter make any other insurance on the
same property, and shall not, with all rea-
sonab1e diligence, give notice thereof to
this corporation, and have the same in
dOrsed in this instrument, OF otherwise ac-
knowledged by them in writing, this policy
shall cease and be of no effect"
In the court below the case was before a
jury, which rendered a verdict for the
amount claimed.
The defendants have appealed. The
policy upon which this action is founded
bears date December 90, 1863, and was for
one year. The plaintiff had previously,
viz, on the twenty-frst of January, 1863,
taken policy on the same risk to the ex-
tent of $1,000, from the Star Mutual Insur-
ance Company, for the period of one year.
The policy was renewed for the period of
/ twelve months. from January 81, 1864, to
January 81, 1865. 1t does not appear that
the plaintiffs ever gave notice to the defend
ants Of their having insured the same prop
erty in the Star Mutual Insurance Com
pany. No entry of such notice appears in
the original act, nor does any acknOwledg.
ment Of netice appear in the instrument. II
would seem from the tenor Of the act and
from the current of decisions on this sub
ject, the plaintiffs have forfeited their right
to recover from the defendants in this case.
The cases reported in 3 Rob. 3S5, and
Rob. 35l are in point; Peters 70 and l6
Peters SO.
1t is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and de.
creed that the Judgment OF the district
court be annulled, avoided and. reversed.