New Orleans Republican., 1872-05-22

the cases in question do not come within
the provisions of either article of the Code.
REHEARINGs REFUSED.
T. Valesur Labarre VS.. Widow Omer
Lauve, administrators, ct al, and E. Jones
Mccall VS.. Thomas Devine, sheriff, ct al.
Mrs. NJ. j. Veazie VS.. Sarah Ann Stokes.
Thomas NJ. Knight VS.. the city of New
Orleans.
NJ Marks, administrator, VS.. the town of
DOnaldsOnville.
Succession of j. B. Navarro.
APPEALS DISMISSED.
The State of Louisiana VS.. James Paine
State of Louisiana VS.. Henry G. Gray.
RULE FOR CONTEMPT.
Etienne VillasO VS.. a. w. Walker.-Rule
dismissed. .E
MOTION DISMISSED.
Felix A. DucrOs VS.. Edward g. Colts
chalk.
United States Circuit Court.
United States vs. Rate" alias Race Car
/ Carter.-This is an Indictment for arson,
| the facts of the case being as follows: That
| Carter, on the second of April, 1872, on the
| site of a needful building belonging to the
| United States, the Peters Lodge of the Ma
tional Cemetery did feloniously, willfully
and maliciOusly burn dwelling house, the
| property of the United States.
/ ~. Cfd6glus
| Books of the plaintiff ordered into court.
! Sophie w. G.. Quinn VS.. the Manhattan
Life Insurance Company, of New York
In this, a suit for the consideration of life
insurance policy, the motion for a new trial
of the case, judgment having been given in
the plaintiffs favor, was yesterday sub
mitted.
Fourth District Court.
State National Bank VS.. S. & j. r. Has
tings.-Theard, J. Appended is the opin-
ion of the court:
The State National Bank is suing S. e. J.
r. Hastings and others on a draft dated
New Orleans, November l. 1871, for $2050,
drawn by M. A. Carter & Co. to the order
of Jacques Levy, and accepted by S. & J.
R. Hastings.
The pleadings present but one question,
viz: the liability of Samuel Hastings as a
member of the commercial firm of 5. g. j.
r. Hastings.
The evidence leaves no doubt, in my
mind, that he was a partner of James r.
Hastings, his brother, who conducted the
drug business in New Orleans for their
joint account.
The draft sued on was accepted by S. g.
j. R. Hastings during the existence of the
partnership. True il is that by the terms
of the contract of partnership James L.
Hastings had no power to draw, indOrse or
accepts drafts. A commercial firm is bound
to any bona fide holder of draft, although
it may have been accepted without author
ity of one Of the partners. 9 A., 339.
But the main point of the defense is that
there was no such firm as 5. q j. r. Hast
ings created by the act of partnership, that
instrument providing that the name of the
partnership was to be Hastings" alone.
This change in the name OF the firm APP
pears to me Insignificant. tParsOn on Part
nership, p. 1861
Samuel Hastings knew that the style of
S. & j. r. Hastings was used; that it was
the style under which all the dealings of the !
firm were conducted for more than two |
years. The checks, the accounts, the license, |
the advertisements, the signs, the labels, |
cards. etc, were all in the name of S. Il j. |
r. Hastings. He was in New Orleans in |
June, 1871, at the drug store, for several |
days, and his agent, S. Hopkins, Jr., knew |
the style used by James K. Hastings, the |
managing partner. How can Samuel Hast |
ings plead ignorance of all this!
Judgment for plaintiff.
Fifth District Court.
Frank Wagner and Louis Meyer have |
entered suit in this court against Felix Cla- |
val and D. de Lauzac, claiming $4,000 |
damages. This claim arises from writ of |
attachment and garnishee process, which, |
according to petitioners, defendants lille |
gally obtained to the injury of plaintiffs; |
the petition representing that for years |
they have conducted their business |
in such a manner as to "gain the sym
pathy of their friends but that owing to |
the disaster of fire, which consumed their
establishment; they became temporarily |
embarrassed and, while in that condition, |
suit was entered against them as indOrsers |
of certain note, and upon representations |
of the plaintiff in that case, that they were |
about to sell or assign their stock in trade, |
! I,osr
writ of attachment was issued, which, |
however. on the the trial Of the case, was |
dissolved. They now claim that the action |
above set forth has damaged them.
Sixth District Court.
The case of j. B. Lewis VS.. w. Van |
Norden, known as the tin-bOx case, occa-
stoned a surprise yesterday in court. When /
the case was called counsel for defendant /
filed motion to discontinue the suit, on an |
order obtained from the plaintiff, Lewis, to |
do so, without the knowledge or consent of |
the plaintiffs counsel, who stated that they |
were surprised by the appearance of such /
a document The case was discontinued.
Mrs. HOrrel VS.. G. S. Sauvinet-COoley, |
Jan execution was placed in the hands /
OF the Sheriff. and was executed on certain /
property on st. Charles street. At the re-
quest of the plaintiff in execution, the |
Sheriff also seized the rents of that DrODer- /
due, but failed to collect the balance. al |
though he made frequent attempts to do So |
The defendant in execution is utterly hank |
rupt. The plaintiff in this suit contends |
that it was the duty of the Sheriff to have |
collected all the rents due on the property. |
and that having failed to do so, he is peE |
sonally liable for the amount.
The Code of Practice makes it the duty
of the Sheriff, whenever he seizes immova-
BILE property, to seize with the property all !
all the rents that are due or to become due.
But he is required to do that-not in the !
interest of the owner of the property-but |
as additional security to the plaintiff in ex-
ecution; it is not for the purpose OF facili- |
tating the collection for the owner. but to |
give greater security to the plaintiff in ex-
ecutiOn.
The Sheriff acts as agent for the plaintiff |
IN execution, but in no manner does he act |
as agent for the defendant in execution. |
The Sheriff is not bound in his own name to
come into court of justice and enforce the
payment OF rents by the provisional seizure
process, unless he is called upon to do so
by one OF the parties to the suit The
seizure OF the rents and the notification he
gives to the defendant on his guard, and