New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-01-16
THE COURTS.

BY the United States District Court, sit
ting in bankruptcy, it was yesterday ordered
that +. +. Norton and A. Miltenberger, as
signees of the Bank of Louisiana in bank
ruptcy, do begin proceedings to recover the
assets against any and all persons who may
have been instrumental in causing their
loss, and particularly against the officers and
directors OF the bank, against whom three
suits were instituted in the Sixth District
Court of Orleans. This rule was made alb
sOlute on trial yesterday. This rule was
brought by Edward Phillips, attorney for
b. b. SHINES and others, billhOlders Of the
bank, as well as Mr.. Livingston. also attOr-
ney for the billhOlders. The plaintiffs in the
rule represent that the amount of bills they
hold became valueless by reason Of the mis-
management Of the bank officers and direct
OrS.
The land suits of Powers heirs. of M.
DeArmas ct ais, as well as kenncrs heirs
against the United States, were decided OF
late in the United States District Court,
and yesterday the several judgments be-
came final. The opinion of the court was
published recently, and the judgment in
each of these cases was based upon this
opinion. In the Power case the sale OF
Intendant Morales to Bernard Nillars. j. +.
L. Dugue, and purchased by Thomas
Power ON the fourteenth of October, 1893,
| are decreed valid titles, and letters patent
ordered to issue.
The sale by Intendant Morales to Chris
toval and Michel DeArmas was decreed;
| likewise a valid title in the DeArmas suit.
Judge Collens, of the Seventh District
| Court, decided Yesterday the suit of Charles
| j. Fox against j. S. Neal and John Z. Sin
mott. The facts of the case are, that Neal
solicited the Endorsement Of Fox to buy a
steamboat for himself, which was given for
| that purpose. Neal however, bought the
| boat. using Fox's Endorsement, but pur-
| chased it in the name of SinnOtt, to whom
| the conveyance was made, and the latter,
when the boat was lost. collected part OF the
| insurance, which he had made payable to
, himself. and put the other part in snt.
The Judge decided that Neal acted as the
agent of SinnOtt, who was estOpped from
denying the Just inference drawn from the
effect Of his own acts. SinnOtt can not urge
stimulation as defense to the passing OF the
title in order to shield Neal from his credit
Ors. These contracts are contra bOnOs mOreS,
and the parties must be left where they
were before the action. Sinnott, by this de-
fense only shows he would be still liable
to plaintiff who is also Meals creditor.
Neal is personally responsible for the ac-
commOdatiOn Endorsement. The defendant
can not allege his own turpitude as a
ground of defense against plaintiffs de-
mand. Judgment for plaintiff.
In the Sixth District Court, the case of
Avendano against Arnold Weber, was de-
cided. The defendant went security tor a
tenant who failed to pay, and set up in de-
Tense that a change had been made in the
original contract without his knowledge.
Judgment was given for plaintiff.
In the case of Newman against Levy,
where the defendant set up a discharge in
bankruptcy il bar to the suit, the court re-
viewed the testimony and decided that the
defendant promised 10 pay the note due sub
seuuent to his discharge.