New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-21
MussOn & Co. to Nevins g. Co. were COM
Mated Docember I

MussOn & Co. to Nevins g. Co. were COM
pleted December l.
The seouestrat;On was obtained on the
twenty-seyenth, so that it was not within
the five DAYS after the sale to have the
effect of succeeding the title of the trans
fierce, but the twenty-hfth was Christmas
and the twenty-sixth was Sunday; and 1t Is
argued, SINCE the last day Of prescription,
or lapse of the right, fell OH a holiday, when
the courts are closed and the bringing of
the action is necessarily or forcibly delayed,
this last day must not be counted. and
therefore, that Misrepresentation was legally
in time ON the twenty seventh to preserve
the benefits of the special and exceptional
act of 1854, p 45, and 1853, p. 36S The
authorities do not sustain this view.
They apply the term prescription. and
the rules relative thereto, to tho lapse OF a
privilege, and decide that when the last
day of even the shortest prescription hap
pens on a holiday, the terms are not pro-
rogued to the following day. TrOplOng on
prescription, vol. 2, No. 8l6; Vazeille, vol. !,
No 32S; Am Law Reg. phil. JAN, 1871,
PIP. 30 and A; Troplon, on privileges, vol.
3. No. ia.
Judge Colens takes the ground that the
law reuuirin. the recording Of privileges
does not apply to movable property, such
as cotton.
1t is ordered and dccreed that the defend
ant be condemned to rer.der an account of
the sales and proceeds OF the property
questered in this case, and that after de-
Quoting from the net proceeds thereof his
advance, say S20,74O, he do pay the residue,
if any. not exceeding 5000, with interest
Fourth District Court.
The Louisiana State Bank vs.. Hibcrnia
Bank and Germania National Bank.-This
is a suit, having grown out OF the transac
tons of of the late firm of Clayton. Williams
& Co., whereby several forged checks were
passed upon several banks OF the city. The
| Louisiana State Bank cashed the checks of
| the above firm upon the two banks i'll de
| Tense. but not before the said checks had
been certified Afterward dscoverin. the
| checks to be forgeries, the liiberna and
! Germania National Banks refused to honor
! said checks and suit Is brought to re
| cover.
The Hibcrna Bank has filed an exception.
| allegin. that it is improperly joined with
| the Germana National Bank. and in case
| this exception is not we'll founded excerpts
| that the Merchants and Canal Banks should
| also be made defendants in the case.
The ease Of the German bark Mathilde
| against the steamship Sherman for damages
| in an alleged collision. last year, has been
| submitted to the court aud will be decided
| i'll few days.
Judge Theard will render to-day deci-
| sion in the noted suit involving the question:
| -. Hnur an articl,. of manufacture or an
| agricultural product.
sixth District Cont.
| Before this court is the case of the city
against :. Andrv. to recover for taxes, in
| which the city has been ordered to show
| cause why the inscription OF the Judgment
| in the above case for city taxes tor 1861,
| and inscribed as il general mortgage. should
| not be erased on the ground that ind gmpnt
| for taxes can not be Inscribed as a general
mortgage.
| The Fisk cOntr,uut case was before this
| court Yesterday for disposition, in which a
| rule was taken nv plaintiff on defendant to
| show canse why he should not be punished
| for contempt in mortoagiu, community
! property.
If was claimed by the defendant that the
| mortyacinsr the property was not a con
| te1npt OF the iuilincfion. as the law only
| stated tlat the defendant should not
| ALLEVIATE or ,ispose of il. The court held
| that that point was not rood under the
| civil law of Louisiana. The Supreme Court
| held that nu,tparinr cama within nrobih,
| tion. and following the Code NAPOLEON. and
| the law Va. more stringent ON mortpapino
| hac.use II WA the more insidious proress
| destroyiur the property of the wife piece
| hy niece. without being seen: if .aupearing
| from the evidence that the defendant, Fisk
| had those MORTGAGES in his own possession.
| for tbe punjshment of the defendant thu.
| court dismissed the rule ON condition that
| defendant should immediately relea Sc the
| mortgage
O.c;.;on .,,;,., RI. C;,x-T,. u,,.,
r..,r,., 81,
'"use Co"i.S n's ieiiaei'h aii opl,ilon III
tic 'po'o sun: III "nl> a nc S1'c Jhrshent
'Sai'st e,n ,o, 'F M W. NeM oiie-'ns ioI tie
, M pi " us r"I' "1' W ~, ~
WI. y'.'h ~ -, "'i,n WY n'u ooen 80 30
Sa'tu ~ 'ie iiSnte "iI Pi So " tIio
y: -i: va ~ . - -, I,:
III ie"ls'lictine eeit'Ih S'Iette III tile Wy vi
The ritv of New Orleans resisted the
claim on the ground that the late Council
of the CITY of Jefferson had no RIGHT to
delegate its special powers to a committee.
and that the work had not been COMPLETED
according to contract. The court in its
oral opinion states that although it did not
think that the said Council had the rirht TO
delegate its powers to the committee. with
whom the contract was originally made. it
had sanctioned the same by its subsequent
action. and was bound by the same.
That although the work had not been
done according to contract, il had been
FURNISHED by the then City surveyor
,, dma w. ..,;,ha,p .+aa,, ~ .,,o oi ~,
mept was to have been made in certticatss
of Indebtedness. convertible into bonds.
haFlnS 'nirtN years 10 run when were oh!E