New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-25
THE COURTS.
The Supreme Court.

ions delivered Oy Inc supreme Court on
Tuesday and yesterday:
Charles L. Leverich VS.. J. NJ. Dulin ct
al-Appeal from the Fourth District Court
for the parish of Orleans Ordered that
the Judgment appealed from be avoided and
reversed, and the SUIT dismissed at plaintiff S
cost. Howe, j.
X. II. Dixey VS.. Patrick Irwin. Citizens
Bank warrantOr-Appeal from the Seventh
District Court for the parish of Orleans.
Judgment affirmed. Howe, j.
A. b. James & Co. vs.. Fellows & Co..
Joseph Hernandez, surety, etc.-Appeal
from the Sixth District Court of the parish
of Orleans.
In the case No. 3345, it is ordered that
the judgment appealed from by plaintiff
be reversed: and in case 2225, it is ordered
that the appeal taken by Joseph Hernandez
be dismissed, and ii Is further ordered that
he pay the costs of both appeals. Howe, j.
State Of Louisiana VS.. John Evans-Ap-
peal from the Sixth Judicial District Court
of the parish OF Tangipahea. Judgment
affirmed. Howe j.
Eugene Landoz vs. Miss Marie Louise
Lam Blanque-Appeal from the Seventh
District Court for the parish of Orleans.
Adjudged that the order of seizure and
sale be annulled and that the appellees
pay costs. Ludeling. G. j.
Succession of Amare IbOs-Appeal from
the Second District Court for the parish of
Orleans. Judgment affirmed. Howell, j.
New Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga
Railroad Company VS.. Camille Zerinque-
Appeal from the Second Judicial District
Court, parish of Jefferson. Ordered that
the Judgment be reversed, and the case re-
manded to the court of the first instance,
with instructions to submit it again to three
commissioners, to be appointed by him.
TaliaterrO, j.
Joseph Il. Anderson VS.. Union Bank of
LOuisiana-Appealf from the Fourth District
Court for the parish of Orleans. Judgment
affirmed. Ludeling, G. j.
g. w. Dunklin VS.. Horrell Gayle & Co.
Appeal from the Sixth District Court for
the parish of Orleans. Judgment reduced
to S29 &C. and thus amended to be affirmed.
Howell, j.
A. Shift. agent, VS.. E. Ezekiel-Appeal
from the Fifth District Court for the parish
of Orleans. Judgment reversed and cause
remanded. WHY, j.
from the Second District Court for the
parish of Orleans. Judgment affirmed. |
Howell. j.
Henry Stafford vs. D. r. Carroll-Appeal
from the Fourth District Court for the |
parish of Orleans. Judgment affirmed. |
WHY, j.
j. S. Wren VS.. Griffen Il Co.-Appeal from
the Seventh District Court for the parish of |
Orleans. Judgment reversed and cause re-
manded. Howe, j.
Henry Reiners VS.. Valentine St. Ceraro-
Appeal from the Fourth District Court for
the parish Of Orleans. Judgment affirmed.
Howe, j.
A. +. Wild VS.. c. L. Ferguson. William
L. Mudgett, ACKNOWLEDGMENT affirmed.
j.
l.. H. Stern 81 Co. VS.. J. Bloom & Co.
Appeal from the Fifth District Court for the
parish of Orleans. Judgment reversed.
Ludeling, c.
j. Bloom & Co. VS.. L. H. Stern & CO.
Appeal from the Fifth District Court for the
parish of Orleans. Judgment reversed
Ludeling, c. J.
Master and Wardens of New Orleans VS..
Robert w. Foster ct als.-Appeal from the
Sixth District Court for the parish of Or
cans. Judgment reversed. Ludeling, G.. j.
Mrs. Widow John Aren't VS.. Francis Bone
t al.-Appeal from the Sixth District Court
or the parish of Orleans. Judgment at
rmed. WHY, j.
eighth District COurt-The City Against
the Late Drainage Commissioners.
The city of New Orleans has applied to
he Eighth District Court for writ of in
JUNCTION to restrain the late acting COM
lissiOners of the second drainage district:
he late acting commissioners of the first
rainage district; John Lockwood, George
'. Brott and II. +. Brown, the latter acting
and as president Of the New {
orleans and Ship Island Canal Company,
'om parting with, dispOsing of. or conceal
lg III any way or manner, any of the
loneys, assessments and claims of drain
ge: any titles to real estate; any books. a
ans, tableaux and any Judgment in favor c
tOr belonging heretofore to the late drain {
&c commissioners; any. office furniture | L
DOks, records, papers oIFdocuments of said s
or heretofore or now held by c
lem or any of them; and any rights, Il
aims, property or effects hereinabOve d
entioned, or embraced by the statute
o. 80, approved March l6, 1870. by which \
e city of New Orleans acquired the L
gal and equitable, the sole and exclusive o
ght to demand, possess and use, control t,
nd enjoy all moneys, assessments. and Il
aims for drainage: all titles to real estate c,
| books, plans, tableauX, judgments in Il
vOr of the late drainage commissioners,
e Office furniture, books and papers OF V
id commissioners, and all rights and o
aims, property and effects belonging to e.
in any way appertaining to tie draining c,
stem or organization established by the d
agislature of the State in certdin acts, APP
owed March IS, 1853, MarGt Il, 1853, a.
arch |, 1861, and certain othe{ acts. T,
The city also prays that she may be, after tt
e proceedings, quoted in the possession a
the rights referred to, With her claim V
damages reserved to her. OF
Upon these statements Judge Dihble is t,
ed the following order of court:
Let writs of injunction issue as herein v
aged for, and according to law, without
nd, the city of New Orleans being by W
" dlsl ensed from furnishing bond. I'll
The cases of the Louisiana Levee Com sd
ny VS.. A. Dubuclet, State Treasurer and
3 State House Commissioners VS. the Audi is
:, came up yesterday but upon suggestion &C
counsel were further continued TO Thurs la
y. June l. 1t is more than probable that re
; recent decision of the Supreme Court
lcling the limitation of the State debt if,
Il affect the present status of these cases. Gu
eth District Court-The Chattanooga TT
Railroad Company sued for $4,000 70
Damages. as
William Francis Higgins, formerly ell tn
Ied in selling newspapers, etc, on the 60
W Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga rail sa
Id, has brought suit against the company ia
recover the sum of $4,000 as damages til
eyed to have been sustained by him in tn
sequence of an accident on SAID road. hi
the eleventh of February, 1871. by which til
rain Of cars, on which plaintiff was, ran IN,
the track. The petitioner claims to have c,
stained injuries which will incapacitate IN
a IRON pursuing any work or occupation X
ateycr, whereby he may gain liveli- ov
ID. 1t is asserted that the accident was siC
lscd by the negligence Of the officers of gu
road and therefore he claims $4,000 an
nageS. TT
Dung Higgins travelled on free pass. N
ich he accepted on condition that he tic
uld assume all risk of personal injury no
t might occur to him while using the til
le as passenger on any trains Of the mi
lpany. wi
:. ii. Thompson VS.. the Mutual Aid and