New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-07
.r rs an inmate of private asylum for the


insane. -
The case Tor plaintiffs not being fully
made out without testimony enormously
admitted. the Judgment i'll their favor is re-
yersed and the cause be relnandcd lor il
new trial Howe, j.
Charles X. Bv,nc Va. the Citizens Bank
Appeal from the Thirteenth Judicial Dis
trict, parish of Madison. Judgment against
plaintiff affirmed. Taliatcrro, }.
Pauline Flanncr VS.. Ambrose Lecompte
and :. Parsons, Shcriif-Appcal from the
district court parish of Natchitoches.
Judgment appealed from reversed, ana III
favor of plaintiffs. Howe. j.
Ar. Miltcnberger VS.. John H. layl"f' tk-
erutor-Appcal from the district court
parish of Rapidcs. 1t is ordered that the
Judgment appealed from be avoided ana re-
ycrSed: that as to account a. for the sum
of S2O66 81. there he Judgment III favor OF
defendant: that as to account Is. !or whlth
there was Judgment in the court below Tor
1874 %. the clam on plaintiff be disniSse"'
as in case Of non-suit. Howe. D.
Stephen X. Fowler vs.. Andrew ;: konth'
administrator Appeal rom the Ihlr'ren'"
Ju.,icia! District. pan sh OF Tcns;s juo2-
ment reversed. Ialia erro. j.
Maria Il. Trudcau ~. Julia G. Row ct al.
.Anpeal from the Seventh judicial District,
narish of West teliciana. The defendant
and her husband. John s. Row. are sued on
a pronissOry note executed ny tnch, III
favor OF L. A. Trrdcau. for ei'Sl % sep
rate answers were filed. The wlir denied
specially That she is bound by hey >i!nat'!fe
| to the note. having signed it through error
! and at the instance OF her husband ana
that the consideration tor which 1t WIS
uiyen did not benefit her individually. l ne
| husbands answer is Il general denial. 'hHG
| ment was rendered against MIS-. 40" i"'
$50 -. and against John :. Row :'r inc
amount of the note. The wife alone 'l'-
pcaled. Jud .mcn+ against ht; nov :.
versed. annullcd and a>oio'"' i"i''
! teIrO, }. ,. n:.h
Eleanor l.. Barrow Us. Amanda H. ken,
,rJSon-Tha Validity OF oathS-Apl'cai
from fine Seventh JuGiciaj District. parish
of West Fcliciana. Justlc" IalialcfF'' III
his opinion. says .....,.,,;
In This casa the defendant had seed
under execution, certain property o! Tue
plaintitf: the latter took out an ih)uh"''"ii
IL restrain the sale. The defendant move
~ dissolve tLe Injunction on the ground
| that the affidavit on which the INJUNCTION
| was issueL WAS IN efficient i'll this. that
the plaintitf and at1iant was not legally
| sworn. III.
If seems that the clerk after writing
| below the name of the plaintlff, at me 1901
of the affidavit. the words. Sworn anu SUD ;.
scribed to this sixteenth day OF June. 10 u
as a witness and swears that the affidavit
was not signed in his presence: that he docs
nor think he ever saw Mrs. Barrow: that he
did not administer that or any other oath 70
Mrs. Barrow: that the affidavit was orodSht
to him by one of the attorneys Ill the case
who told him that Mrs. Barrow signed the
affidavit.
This. we suppose, is fair statement OF
the case: but it dscloses method OF get
H.. nnt contaminated W.
Mrs. Barrow, the plaintiff. not having taken
the oath required to enable her to obtain al
| Injunction. the case fails. Code OF Practice,
| art. :}O4. go
1t is ordered that the Judgment of the dis
trict court be affirmed.
Carroll Hoy & Co. vs.. Mrs. NJ. A. DAVID
son.-Appeal from the district court, parish
Of Rapides. The plaintiffs sued TO recover
on two notes signed by the defendant as
administrative of her husbands estate. Inc
| defense ia that she can not he made reSp0n
| sibIe for the debts of her deceased husband
Justice Howell, i'll his opinion. says: IL
is no longer an open question mat cNtcU
TORS or other administrators can not III any
transaction in which they pretend to act as
such. create any liability on the estates
represented by them. They have the power
TO acknowledge existing debts or liabilities
but not to create them. Ii 1t should b'
necessary to conduct IA plantation tor the
benefit of a succession during the time
necessary for settling it up. special a'l
thority NAV he obtained from the court u
do so. and this binds the estate tor currcD'
expenses But to permit an administrator
Indefinitely to carry on the planting Dlsl
ness and annually TO increase the indebted
ness of the estate. would give him The
mower to ruin the estate irretrievably
INDIGNANT appealed from must be reversed
and nIaintiffs recover Of defendant with IN
tereSt.
Auruste Voinche VS. Fielding Edwards
Appeal from the district court. parish %
Avovelles Plaintiff claims of defer! Ian
the sum Of s2OS6 - upon sight draft
drawn by f. Edwards upon {. a. Weed 4
Co.. of New Orleans. ordering the paymen
TO plaintitf the proceeds of eighteen bales
Skinned to Weed & Co. by said Edwards.
The defendant answers substantially
that he never had possession or control "
the cotton: that it was shipped to his com
mission merchants. Weed 4 Co.. withou
his knowledge or consent, by one Todd
who represented himself as his agent; tina
he never received the amount OF its sale
that of his own cotton. sold by said Wee
a. Co.: that he has instituted SUIT a.alnS
them for said cotton, but is not reSponSlhl
to plaintiff From the Judgment again,
him he has appealed. Judgment affirmed
Howell, j.
George H. Sails vs. McLearn & Mason
Appeal from the district court parish Z
Rapides. Judgment appealed from II
versed and that there he judgment IN favo
/ OF defendants. Howell, j.
Citizens Bank VS.. Bonvard st. Armails-
. Appeal from the district court. parish {
Natchitoch cs-Judgment affirmed. Howell
/ Warren Crawford VS.. Ann +. Childres
. | tutrix-Appcal from the district cour
e parish of Avoyclles. Judgment affirmed
C | Howell. j.
ia. Blanc. Syndic. vs.. Frederick He.'
zog and Amira Hcrtzos-:Appeal from til
district court. parish of Natchitochc
Plaintiff as syndic of b. Toledano. an
!. TAYLOR. sues the defendant. F. HertzOg. o
: a note made by Hcrtzog Brothers. of whic
! firm he was a member, and Mrs. Ami
Hertzog, on draft drawn by her IN 1aV'
: of Hertzog Brothers on Ar. Miltenherge
but not accented for the amount due on Il
: note of said Hertzog Brothers. and f,
which it was pledged as collateral sccurit,
She expected to bring suit in the same a
;, ton. tie obligations. if any, being excluslN
i and indcpendeut: and there being no pro
, ity of contract between the defendant
~ The exception was Ovcrrrled, ana the q
~ PENDANTS filed separate answers.
i That of Frederick HertzOG was gener;
:. denial: of Mrs IIcrtzOg was that she gaN
the order to Hertzog Brothers solely II
their own benefit and accommodation, tht
l. being her sons, and not as commercial
negotiable paper to be paid or The sal"
t, her then growing crop, which WIS destIoN'
/ by the Confederate army withouf any IAN
l. on her part. and that she never receive
IS any value for said order. Judgment VI
o rendered in favor of plaintiff, and dcfen
ne ants anncalrG In his opinion, JuStl