New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-09

sided in New York. He prayed that re-
ceiver be appointed to liquidate the affairs of
the partnership; that curator ad hoe be
appointed to represent Edey, the absentee;
that an injunction issue against Edey
through the curator dd hoe, restraining him
from exercising control over or selling his
property; that on a final hearing, ETC., Edey
be ordered to retransfer the real estate back
to the partnership. The Eighth District
Court issued the writ of injunction as prayed
for, and appointed receiver, with special
powers to take charge of and collect the
revenues of the real estate belonging to
Edey pending the suit for settlement of
the partnership. Griffin, and Edey, through
his curator ad hoe, appealed. The decision
of the lower court was reversed, the lnJunc-
ton dissolved. and the order appointing the
receiver so modified as to strike out that
portion giving him power to take charge of
and collect the revenues of the real estate
belonging to Edey. The decision of the
Supreme Court in this case is based on the
well settled doctrine that, in this State, a
party owning real property, situated in the
State, by title, translatiye of property
can not be Invested thereof except by a
direct action. That even if the title from
Griffin to Edey be fraudulent, or if it be
purchased by Griffin in his own name with
partnership funds, still it is Edey's prop
erty until the contrary is judicially declared
in revocatOry action to annpl it.
Joseph Beck vs. Germania Insurance
Company-Appeal from the Fifth District
Court for the parish of Orleans. Judgment
affirmed. Howell, j.
Rehearings have been refused in the fol
lowing cases:
Robert N. Dixey va. Peter c. MandeI. r.
X. Cutler, warrantOr.
+. w. Burbank VS.. l. Bloom.
Flash, Hartwell & Co. vs.. New Orleans,
Jackson and Great Northern Railroad
Company.
David Wallace ct al VS.. r. d. Urquhart
ct al.
A A. Nevins, FOlstall and DeLassus.
i. A. Santon, tutor, VS.. w. L. Leverich
and John DeLacy, Sheriff.
Louis A. Sant0n, tutor, VS.. William j.
Beatty.
In the case of Henry c. Hill VS.. H. S.
Losel and the Sheriff, a reheaIing has been
granted.
Same in the case of Ed. Villere vs. Benja-
min Butman.
Crane. Breed e. Co. vs. j. w. Quinn, Con-
stable, William phillips. warrantor-Ap-
peal from the Seventh District Court, parish
of Orleans. This was a suit for $780, the
value of hearse. Ordered and adjudged
that the Judgment appealed from be amend
ed by striking out that part reserving to
defendant and warrantOr the right of salts
flying said Judgment by delivering to the
plaintiff the hearse referred to in the pc
tition, and that in other respects said judg-
ment be affirmed with costs. Howell, j.
Samuel Depass VS.. Ester Winter7.Appeal
from the Fifth District Court for the parish
of Orleans. This is a suit for divorce.
Judgment of the lower court in favor of the
plaintiff reversed; the unconventional de-
mand of the wife sustained; the marriage
declared dissolved, and for the purpose of
making partition of property, cause re-
manded to the lower court, plaintiff to pay
costs. In this suit the parties are upward
of sixty years of age. Howe, j.
City of New Orleans VS. Home Mutual
Insurance Company-Appeal from the Fifth
District Court for the parish of Orleans.
This action was brought to recover $1,000,
the amount of the license tax claimed of de-
PENDANT under an ordinance of the city of
New Orleans. The defendant AYERS that
the ordinance is unequal. unjust and con-
trary to the constitution of the State"
There was Judgment in favor of the de-
PENDANT, and the plaintiff appealed.
The ordinance provides that the insurance
companies doing business in the city shall
pay a license, as follows:
Where the premiums received for the
year 1869, after deducting reinsurance, re-
turn premiums and internal revenue, shall
be one million dollars or over, $4,000; eight
hundred thousand dollars and under one
million dollars, $4,000; six hundred thousand
dollars and under eight hundred thousand
dollars, $4,000; four hundred thousand dol
lars and under six hundred thousand dol |
lars, $4,000; three hundred thousand dollars |
and under four hundred thousand dollars |
$4,000; two hundred and fifty thousand dol |
lars and under three hundred thousand dol |
lars, $500; two hundred thousand dollars |
and under two hundred and fifty thousand |
dollars, Sl2AN; one hundred and fifty thou |
sand dollars and under two hundred thou |
sand dollars, $1,000; under one hundred and |
fifty thousand dollars, $3.50.
The tax imposed is for a license to carry |
On business or occupation. 1t is the price |
exacted for the privilege to pursue pro-
IessiOn, trade or occupation.
The constitution requires that license |
tax, as we'll as tax on property, shall be |
equal and uniform. To be equal and uni |
lorm, the tax imposed must be the same |
lpan all who engage in the particular pro-
ession or calling taxed, without reference |
% the abilities, fortunes or successes of |
hose engaging in the business taxed. 10 |
Ann, p. So, Municipality No. 2 VS.. Dubois
I Mish; II Ann, p. 739, Police Jury VS..
Soguas; 20 Ann, p. 49, Parish of Orleans
IS. Cockrane.
The ordinance in question fixes unequal
axes upon persons pursuing the same Occu-
'atlon. 1t is therefore unconstitutional and
yoid. Art. llS.
1t is ordered that the judgment of the
over court be affirmed, with costs of ap-
zeal. Ludeling, C. j.
Same vs.. Southern Insurance Company;
anne We. New Orleans Mutual Insurance
company; same vs. Crescent Mutual Insur-
nee Company; same vs.. Factors and Trad
rs Insurance Company-Appeals from the
fifth District Court. parish of Orleans. All
hese cases are similar to that of the Home
insurance Company above reported, and for
he reasons given it is ordered that the judg-
nent of the lower court be affirmed, with
osts of appeal. Ludeling C. j.
il. G. Cady vs.. Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines
appeal from the Seventh District Court,
arish of Orleans. Suit upon a promissory
ote. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed, with
We per cent damages for frivolous appeal,
nd costs.
Thorn Schorr VS.. P. w. WOodlief-Ap-
cal from the Fourth District Court for the
arish of Orleans. Judgment appealed
rom reversed aud the action of plaintiff
ismissed as in case of nonsuit, and at his
Osts. Howe, j. This suit was an faction
n foreign bills of exchange drawn by de-
endant at jackson, Mississippi, on firm in
lObile, Alabama, protested fer non-pay-
tent August %, 1862. Defense, general
email Judgment for plaintiff and appeal
y defendant. The only evidence of the
office of protest was furnished by the in
'oduction, without proof of signature or
fficial capacity, of an official copy of the
ct OF protest by the notary in Mobile,
hitch contains clause stating that notices
protest for p w. Woodlief were sent by
lail, directed to him at jackson, Mississippi.
he defendant by objection and exception
rcsents the question as to how far this pa
er establishes the liability of the de.