New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-09
THE COURTS.
supreme Court Opinions.

of tbe Second District Court, which order
named the defendant the auctioneer. At
the sale, movable property, consisting
mainly Of furniture then in the use OF the
family of the executOrl, was adjudicated 70
the plaintiff After some delay and several
calls for the money, he paid the price,
taking the receipt of the auctiOneer. All
the articles, it seems, remained IN the place
where the sale was made until sold by the
Sheriff ia some other proceeding The PLAIN
tiff sues Nash, the auctioneer, and his OH
cial sureties, to recover the sum PAID by
him. on the ground that Nash received it as
depOsitarY
How or why his property was sold the
second time WAS not explained. The plain
tiff purchased it at an auction sale, and
about month thereafter paid the price.
1t must be presumed that he was then salts
fed as to its situation and his control over
it. The aucti0neer does not seem to have
had DOssessiOn of it, nor been called on for
delivery, and we are unable to see upon
what principle he can be made responsible
to plaintiff except, perhaps, upon show
ing that the money is IN ms hands and
claimed by no one else. Tins has not been
done On the contrary, the auct1Oneer shows
that he has paid portion to the executor;
that the succession owed him a large sum,
and that the balance has been attached in
his hands In a suit against the said j. K.
WOodman. He certainly did not receive
the money as the depOsitary of plaintiff,
but as the price of succession property sold
TO pay succession debts, and he is bound
primarily to the succession and to the court
ordering him to make the sale; and the al
legation of plaintiff that said sale was can
celed by the court because it did not bring
twO-thirds of its appraised value, and was
sold again by the Sheriff by order of SAID
court, if admitted by the vagueness of the
answer, does not change the relation of the
auctioneer, under the circumstances, to his
principal.
It is ordered that the Judgment appealed
from oe reversed, and that there be judg
ment in favor of defendant.
Fourth District Court.
Anna c. Jones, wife of George w. Smith,
has a mortgage of 1000 against her hus-
band, which Is duly recorded.
It appears that one George w. Smith,
whose wife's name is Theodore Reams,
wanted to sell certain real estate, and in
order to have the act passed before notary
public, applied to the mortgage Office for
the proper certificate. They reported
against him mortgage of $4,000, so that
he was compelled to take a rule on the
other Smith to show that he was not the
party against whom the mortgage was
standing.
The only way to make q discrimination
between the two George w. Smiths was by
their wives, who have different names.
Judge Theard, in the trial of the rule
suggested to the parties that their children
should hereafter use both the family names
of their fathers and mothers, as customary
in Europe.
Sixth District Court.
In the year 1862 suit was instituted in
this court against Benjamin F. Butler, in
which plaintiff, claiming S3l 600, alleged
that the defendant took fOrcible possession
of his store and contents, and disposed of
the same for his own benefit.
Mr.. A. G. Lewis was appointed curator ad
hoe to represent the defendant, and after
dragging its slow length along, the suit was
decided in favor of plaintiff
Eighth District Court.
Mrs. Barboi Schuster Hearing ct al. have
filed a petition in this court against the
Mound City Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany, of st. Louis, Missouri claiming $l0,-
600 on policy of insurance issued to Jean
Joseph Albert BonnafOn, for the use and
benefit Of petitioners.
Decisions in the following cases were rem
dered:
The State of Louisiana ex rel. C. w. Low
Ell VS.. James Graham, State AuditOr.-The
mandamus in this case is made peremptory.
The applicant claims warrant for 5000.
j. o. Nixon VS.. Solomon & Simpson.-In
this case there is judgment for the plaintiff
declaring the Judgment rendered in the
GdSC VI Tic DbehtD CA It'll DUiUAuOu q DlluD-
son VS.. James Graham, null and of no
effect, in so far as it may operate against
this plaintiff, and especially In so far as it
may operate to prevent this plaintiff in his
own. behalf from claiming the appropriation
made him IN the act of the Legislature for
the relief of j. o. Nixon, public printer
State ex rel j. L. g. Z. III. Lew VS. E. E. !
Adams and p. B. s. Pinchbaek, Board of
Metropolitan POliee.-In this case the man.
damus is refused. The application was made
to compel the board to issue warrant In
payment of certain Judgment.
State of Louisiana ex rel. James g.
Bynum VS.. James Graham, State Auditor.
The mandamus prayed for is refused. Re-
latOrs, who are Iessees OF the Louisiana |
Penitentiary, brought this action to COM
pei the Auditor to issue to them certif- |
Gates of Indebtedness for claim held by /
them against the State, amounting to /
$lS,l67.
+. j. Heron VS.. James Graham, State |
Auditor.-Mandamus granted, decreeing |
relator to be entitled to warrants in pay |
ment Of his services as Secretary OF State. |
Isaac Bloom VS.. F. ShOnakus.-In this |
case judgment for 5000 was rendered. and /
the costs Of court were S247. On an appeal
bond Of $500 was given. Defendant
moved to dismiss the appeal, on the I
ground OF nsuthciency OF appeal bond.
The court, in overriding the motion, said
that the Supreme Court has held that in
considering amount Of appeal bond, the
costs of court should not be included
United States Circuit Court.
Mary P. Evans VS.. William S. Pike
Rule for a new trial, returnable on the
eleventh instant taken on plaintiff, and the
defendant is allowed until Monday to sub /
NIT his bill of exceptions.
j. NJ Burklay VS.. Board of Levee Com |
missioners.-Except to be urged before |
Judge Bradley, expected to arrive the |
coming week.
G. A. Lally VS.. Edgar MOren ct ais. De- |
crees made subsequent to the last order of |
the presiding Judge rescinded, leaving to |
the parties their remedy on the equity side |
of the court.
In the case of the United States against |
the jackson Railroad Company to enforce
a fine for intended shipment of empty bar |
rels, on which were uneffaced internal rev. |
enue stamps, there was discontinuance by |
the government, on payment of fine of |
$500, pursuant to instructions from the Sec /
rotary of the Treasury.
The United States District Attorney has |
commenced suits against Myers & Levy, on /
a rewarehOusing customhOuse bond; against /
A. T. Bennett a. Co., H. A. Schurmann,
Charles McMurdO and Fred FrescO, on a |
similar customhouse bond, and all being for
for violations of the laws of revenue.
United States District COurt-In Admi-
raltys
In the case of James Berry vs. David |
Rich, the court decreed that the writ of |
arrest be set aside, and the bail bond can
celed.
E. E. Norton VS.. j. j. Person-The bill of
complaint taken pro c0nfeSSO against de-
fendant, John McDOugal having failed to
appear to demur thereto.
Valentine ROthang VS. John Clark-Judp- |