New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-02
THE COURTS.

| The grand jury was yesterday dismissed
! until the thirteenth instant in the United
| States Circuit Court. -
| In the case of William G.. Witherell
| against Daniel Jex, it was agreed that the
| title to the premises in question was IN the
defendant Jex, and the petition OF she
| plaintiff was dismissed.
In the case of w. J. Gordon VS.. J. H. Lud-
wigsen the jury found for plaintiff for
| $l2,500, the same being on promlssory
note.
In the United States District Court tine
proceeds of the steamboat Hudson were
ordered to be distributed.
In the case Of Ruth A. G.. Patterson VS..
the city of Baltimore, Judge Collens has
delivered the following interesting opinion:
"Conceding that there were irregularities
in the form and manner of the proceedings
and execution in the case Of the City OF
Baltimore VS.. E. A. Patterson, none OF them
are in my opinion absolute. Certainly no
proceedings can be carried on against
dead man as if he were still living: but this
is not done in this instance. True, the
petition and process were against tine de-
ceased by name, but all the process was
served upon his heirs and the legal repres-
entative of his estate, and there is little
force in their present complaint that the
petition and process shall have been against,
and the notice to the administrator OF f. A.
Patterson. instead of +. A. Patterson him
self.
I'm all the decisions cited as authority by
the plaintiff the essential reason for declar
ing the sales arbitrarily null was not the
mere name used in the process but the fact
that the citation or other process was served
either not at all or upon some party, such
as curator ad hoe or the like, having no
legal right whatever to represent the de-
ceased or his estate. Such proceedings
were, therefore, absolutely null for total
want of citation or notice. but here the case
is very different. The notices at every step
were served on the real and legal parties in
interest, and Mrs. Patterson, as widow in
community, actually took part and assisted
in the sale. Her interest as widow was
therefore absolutely divested. So, also, she
acted to the same effect as far as she was
able to do so, in hercapacity as tutrix. Nor
is any demand made by her in this suit in
that capacity OF administrator; but even in
this capacity, no one complains but her sue
cessOr in his capacity. Mrs. Patterson had
been duly notified. and had waived the in
formality which she as administrator and
her successor as such complain of.
Admitting that in this capacity (the only
one in which the suit is now presented) the
plaintiff could not waive the informality in
question, still (the administrator having
been actually made party to the proceed
ings by service of all the notices required
in such cases, and having otherwise become
party by standing at the sale and after
ward taking the residuum of proceeds) the
irregularities complained of, to say the
most, could only be regarded as relative,
and therefore the sale can not be set aside
without previous tender of the price, which
went to the benefit of the estate, and in
demnity for improvements.
In fact it does not appear that the adj
ministrator. so far as representing credit
ors. has any cause of complaint. No tran
script of record OF the succession of Pat
terson has been filed as promised, and it in
no wise appears that there are creditors:
while so far as the administrator represents
the widow and tutrix. the estOppel which
could be urged against her, can be urged
against him. The heirs themselves, or by
their tutrix, are not plaintiffs. Judgment
tor defendant.