New Orleans Republican., 1872-08-06
gyetr 0tIEatts geptblifalr.
OFFICIAL JOURNAL Of THE UNITED STATES
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF NEW ORLEANS
supreme Court DecI.Ions.

tains the following abstract of Supreme
Court decisions 'that have not previously
been published in the REPUBLICAN:
CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELIEG.
X. w. Turner, under tutor, vs. B. +.
O'Neal, sheriff, ct al.-That part of judg
ment decTeeing that the property be sold
subject to the general tacIt mortgage Of
plaintiffs is annulled and, as thus'amended,
judgment affirmed
Amos Abrams vs.. A. G. Teague.-Judg-
ment for plaintiff for $6l4 IL, with legal
interest from judicial demand, and for de-
livery of 1880 pounds Of lint, cotton baled,
or for $50 80, with legal interest from Jan
uaTy ], 1872. Attachment retained, privi-
lege recognized and unconventional de-
mand dismissed. Defendants costs.
X. l.. Gilmer VS.. II. B. OrtOn Il Co. and
Stacy & POland-Judgment amended by
reducing the same to judgment in sCldo
against the defendants for sl2O, with inter
est from March 6.
Carroll, Hoy & Co. vs.. Eliza W. Wooloy,-
Plaintiffs allege fraud in an account filed
by defendant as administrators, in that she
did not account for a sum Of money re-
Ceivcd by her husband just prior to his
death. IL is not shown that the money ever
passed into defendants hands, say the
court. Judgment affirmed with costs.
Louisiana Mutual Insurance Company VS..
Walters and Eldcr.-Judgment aunulled;
both courts.
Jacob Citron vs.. Eliza Weil-Divorce
suit from the parish Of CaGdO.-"An exami
nation Of the disgusting evidence il this
case satisfies us that both parties are in
fault. Domestic broils are not to be set
tied in courts Of justice. Ii the conduct Of
the party complaining has been outrageous
the remedy must first be sought in a,refOrm-
alton Of that conduct" NJ. ia; 9 La
42l; 10 La. 2jl. Judgment and verdict
set aside and demands Of both parties re-
jeCted.
G. +. Alter VS.. j. b. Pickett Paulina
Pickett, intervenOT.-If article ninety-three
Of the Code Of Practice be in conflict with
the act of 1861 the latter being the last ex-
preston Of the legislative will relative to
the jurisdiction of the courts rGtiOHe per-
SOl0, must prevail In this case the court
held that q garnishce could not be sued ox
cept in the court Of his dOmicile. Judg-
ment annulled, and plaintiffs demand re-
jected.
Joseph T. Swami vs. Ann L. Gayle, ad-
ministratriX-On reheaTing.-Suit to re
scind sale for the nOn-payment Of the
price. FilhiOl, vendor, transferred to plain
tiff three prOmissOry notes, indOrsed with
out recourse" on the ninth of February,
1867. On the fourth of September, 1869,
Filhiol made to Swan deed of subrOga-
tiOn. Held, that the subrogatiOn was a null
lity, not having been made at the time of
sale All expressions touching the resO-
lutOry conditions in former decisions have
been used uygueHdO, and the court treats
the question as ne y one. Swan acquired
no other right than such as is necessary to
enforce the payment of the notes, VIZ:
mortgage and vendors privilege. He did
not, in buying the notes, take the place of
FilhiOl in the contract of sale. Former
Judgment Of this court set aside, the judg-
ment of the District Court reversed and an
nulled, and judgment for defendant with
costs in both courts.
Templeman, curator, vs.. G. NJ. PGgUes,
curator, and f. M. Daniel, interyenor-On
rehearing-Q Question: Whether an action
for the dissolution Of q sale for nOn-pay-
mcnt of the price can be maintained if the
notes given for the price are prescribed ~
The right to dissolve sale for the non
payment Of the price 'is distinct and in
dependent right not to enforce the pay
ment but to recover back the land for the
nOn-fufllment Of the obligation Of buyer"
Swan VS.. Gayle. "lt is chiefly when col
lection Of the notes can not be enforced |
that tae right is valuable" The dissolution
of the sale is not one accessory to the notes.
and does not perish with them. Judgment
affirmed with costs. Justices Wyly and !
Howe dissenting.
JUSTICE TALIAFERRO.
Winston, Thomson 4 Co. vs. Keys & Nc !
Knight.-Judgmcnt affirmed with.costs.
}. s. Copes VS.. Phelps & Co.-Judgmcnt !
affirmed.
Walters g. Elder VS.. Mrs f.. c. Beck
ham.-Wbere defendant said that the old
note was as good as a new one would be-
and that she would pay it as soon as new
one held that this acknowledgment inter
rupted prescription.
{. L. Il. King VS.. succession Of j. b. |
Trigg; G. w. Roach VS.. same, consOli- |
dated.-A proceeding by rule to have the !
81. /, -l,y
why Judgment should not be rendered !
against her and surety in solidO, and pray |
ing for the filing of a final account. Held |
that the proceedings are irregular No |
grounds for this harsh proceeding, or for !
dismissal of administrative. Case dismissed, !
plaintiffs paying costs
Simon Edwards vs. j. I. Robinson, j. |
Chaffe & Brother, ntervehOrs.-Judgment |
affirmed. Eve know Of no law which re- |
uuires the proof (Of planting partnership |
to be in writing" Judgment for defendant |
for $l35 70, with legal interest from Janu'
airy /, 1868
/. j. Willis VS.. J. Nicholson ct als.-Plea /
of res jydicata sustained, Justice Taliaterro
dissenting.
Consolidated Association of Planters ef
Louisiana VS.. j. w. Mason ct als.-A judg
ment is not appealable until signed; and
when appeal is taken in open court, no Cita-
ton is necessary. Motion to dismiss over
ruled.
Where a mortgage was given in 1880 on
land described as "a tract of land of five
arpeIHs front, bounding or adjoining the
town of Monroe, with forty aTpents in depth, |
Of which fifty arpents only are cultivated !
in cotton and corn, the balance in standing |
timber held, ON exception, that the de |
scription met the requirements Of article |
1906 Civil Code The fact that the mort |
gage was in the French language does not |
invalidate it, Exceptions dismissed; cause |
remanded.
l.. NJ. 3. Rind, husband, VS. j. l.. Hun I
sicker, ct al.-A suit pending was COmprO. |
missed without the knowledge OF plaintiffs |
attorney, who filed a petition praying to /
have his privilege as attorney recognized. |
on the Judgment he might have obtained. |
1--WE know of no law giving an attorney at |
law a privilege on Judgment not yet III eX'
isteuce, and no law TO compel party to |
prosecute a suit to = Judgment in order that |
the attorney in the suit may obtain and en-
force a privilege on the said Judgment for |
his professional services The plaintiffs |
having compromised their suit, which they
had right to do, and demanded its dis
missal, it was at an end, and there is no |
suit in which an'ntervention can be main
tanned" Judgment affirmed
j. j. Long VS.. TCmpleman, CURATOR
Where a surety is compelled TO pay for his |
,principal in North Carolina, where the |
paper was made: held, that the laws Oftbat |
State regulate the period CT prescription.
Judgment reversed.
Judgment reversed: attachment dissolved; /
damages $500; judgment for S699 20 with |
interest from March 4. 1871. and privilege !
r.,