New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-12-21
THE COURTS.
United stntes DistrEcr court.

fifteen days after the steamship should
arrive at New Orleans. That r. nj. SOmer
became the owner Of this promise made in
writing, having all the rights of Gambeli.
That payment was refused by Reynolds as
master. Wherefore payment is demanded.
Proceedings to force by petition G. A
Weed into involuntary bankruptcy were
commenced in the United States District
Court by j. H Mckee, a former partner Of
the defendant and a writ was issued d.
rected to the United States marshal to pro-
visionally seize the establishment of the
New Orleans Times, its press, type, books
and running gear, and hold the same sub
ject to the further order of court.
In conformity to practice, the contents of
the petition were kept a secret, and the
marshal and his deputies took possession OF
| the Times office and closed 1T up, holding
the books, the type and other parts Of the
establishment in conformity to the order.
In the case of James Donnelly, applying
for release, the court ordered that the mar
shall produce to-day the body Of Donnelly,
now confined in the Parish Prison, in order
to inquire into the circumstances Of the
| imprisonment.
Superior District COurEo
There has come before this tribunal q
| legal controversy touching the proprietor
ship of Louisiana lottery ticket, which
happened to draw the handsome prize of
| $1,000.
Plaintiff in the suit AYERS that he went
with friend to q lottery agency, where,
! desiring TO purchase a twenty-five cent
ticket, he found himself just a nickel short
| of the required amount.
This munifcent sum the aforesaid friend
generously loaned to him, and the ticket
| was duly purchased. But mark the sequel.
No sooner had the original buyer secured
his bargain than the friend Ito the end, no
doubt, that he might be made secure in his
| FIVE cent investment), inGOntinently
| snatGhed the emblem of anticipated wealth
| and made off with it on the wings of the
| wind.
AS luck would have it, the ticket drew a
| big prize, whereupon the detrauded part
| ner obtained from this court an injunction
restraining the company from paying the
| prize until the matter at issue could be sat
isfactorily adjudicated.
There have been filed in this court 285
motions from as many taxpayers praying
| to have vacated and set aside 285 iudg-
ments, which, it is claimed, were prema-
turely signed by the Judge of the Eighth
| District Court.
Second District EOurto
In the succession of Pierre Pinaud, Sudge
| Tissot has rendered the following deci-
| sion:
On rule of A. Roeberau e. Co, agents and
attorneys in fact of the widow and heirs Of
Jean Roquez:
l. l do not believe the first point made by
Mrs. Pinaud, administrators, tenable. This
| court has, in my opinion, jurisdiction, and
can entertain the rule which has for object
| to follow the property on which plaintiffs
| in rule have privilege and right OF
pledge
| At the time Fellow, who was the igui-
! dator Of the firm OF Pinaud & Fellow, at
one time went into bankruptcy, the prop
erty on which the right Of plaintiff reposed
| was under seizure Professionally, by virtue
| of writ issued from the Seventh District
| Court. The bankrupt court wrested the
same from the sheritf and afterward restored
| the proceeds to him. Hence plaintiffs can
not apply to that court, but must come
| here to exercise their said privilege and
right Of pledge which are independent of
the debt Of Fellow.
| 2. Whether the property belonged to the
! succession or to Fellow is immaterial. 1t
was in the leased premises, and subject
| therefore to the privilege and right of
| pledge of plaintiff. No notice was ever
| given to plaintiff that the property was held
| or detained by Fellow in the premises
against the will and consent Of the admins
| tratrix, or retained there against her will
| and in violation of her rights. ANY suit
| pending in court between Fellow and the
| Administrative was not noticed to plaintiff
| Such notice should have been brought home
! TO them directly to be binding.
| 3. do not consider the sheriff released q
| seizure, made at the instance of plaintiffs,
| in d iycring the property to the official
custodian of the bankrupt court. He acted
under orders which he was bound to obey.
The property passed from the custody Of
| one officer of the law to that OF another,
and the privilege and right of pledge was
not lost, III my opinion. The fact that some
Of the property still remains on the prem
ises does not impair the right OF plaintiffs,
If true. Privileges are indiyisible: they
attach with the right Of pledge on all the
property subject to it, However, the
fact that property remains on the premises
still is not established.
T. Whether the funds in sherif9s hands
be or not exclusive property of the success
sion, and was SO adjudged by the bankrupt
court does not affect the rights of plaintiff!
They were not parties to the judgment of
that court and the matter passed upon is is
res inter alias racta. These funds are the pro
ceeds of the property on which the priv
lege and right of pledge of plaintiffs rested,
and they are entitled to claim the same, in
asmuch as the same was disposed Of with
out their knowledge and consent, under
judicial orders, which could not deprive
them of their validity.
5. The interest of the succession in the |
property or it's proceeds is merely residuary
1t belonged to the partnership. Even if it |
did not can not concede that under the ar
ticle Of the code and the decision of the Su-
preme Court, plaintiffs are not entitled to
exercise their privilege and right of pledge |
on the same; they have nothing to do with |
the succession.
After carefully considering tho evidence |
and the authorities cited to me by counsel, |
| come to the conclusion that the rule OF
plaintiffs should be made absolute, for the |
law and the evidence are, in my humble |
Judgment, clearly in their favor.
Let the rule, therefore, be made absolute. |
The SUGGESTIONS of Caroline Gay, de- |
ceased, wife of Henry Hafner, and of Catha. !
Fifth District Courto
Judge Cullom has rendered an interest
Loan, Savings aud Pledge Bank vs.. John |
The plaintiff institute this suit through i.
its president, George II. Braughn, to re-
cover the sum OF $3.50, exclusive of interests |
and costs. The action is based on 8 pro
nissory note made by the defendant. and |
dated August 19, A. d. 1872, payable to the
order of the said John kerns three months
after date, and by him indorsed
1t is secured, together with the accruing
interests costs, and five per cent for attOr
ney's fees lin the contingency of the holder
having to collect it by legal prOcess) by d
mortgage bearing upon certain lot OF
ground, with all the improvements thereon,
rights, privileges and appurtenances there
unto belonging, included Said property is
situated in the First District of this city,