New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-09

Catherine Dantasnan ct ais. VS.. Mary v.
Price, widow and tutyix.
George Hunt Jr. vs. George l.. Ronde-
bush.
w. S. Doanell ct ais VS. c. Gante ct ais
Reversed in favor OF defendant.
second District Court.
The case of the Widow Wheyland will
come up today.
The heirs of w. Douglass, the young man
| killed By the collision on the river between
the towboats Aspinwall and Admiral have
sued the succession OF Peterson, owning the
Aspinwall. for 5000 damages
Bogart Shall vs.. H.. Foley and w. b.
! COnger. executors of Wiihelmus Bogart.
In this case the facts appear to have been
this HE plaintiff claims from the defend
ants, executors Of the succession of the late
Niiheimus Bogart, the sum of $35. O00, with
interest from November 10. 1858, Oh the fol
| lowing grounds:
"llhelmus Bogart, qualified as under
tiitor OF the minor children VI E. z. Shall
the petitioner being one Of those minors ;
his grandmother, Mrs. Patsey Shall was
appointed his tutrix OF the death OF said
Patsey Shall, his tutrix, Wilhelmus Bogart
GlaHned as testamentary executor OF the
deceased, and a. such took possession of
| her property and administered on the same
| III his capacity of executor.
lhat petitioner inherited from the sue
ctsslons money amounting to $35, 1000.
which property Bogart had previously in
| part possessed at the instance of. or took
| possession OF the whole at the time of the
death of Mrs. Patsey Shall, or shortly there
after, under the title of under tutor, and
undertook to manage and control the same
TOR the benefit Of petitioner, and having no
warrant IN law to so take possession OF the
property OF petitioner after the death of
lxnl
petitioner for the faithful administration
and subsequent Delivery of the same value,
with its accretions. Bogart, when pet
toner had attained his majority delivered
notes and obligations to him amounting to
S26,Oi6 66. for which he gave receipt, but
has since ascertained the most of them were
orthless.
The executors say the entire estate has
been distributed in accordance with the
will of the late Wi|helmus Bogert, and in
accordance and with the judgment of the
court honoiogating the account. The court,
SAYS:
The hOmologation of the final account
fled by the executors. and the distribution
OF the funds among the creditors and lega
tees OF the deceased. are no bar to the
present action; that, if after the executors
have made payment of the funds in their
hands and new creditors present them
selves, they can oblige the legatees who
have been paid to return their legacies en-
tlrely, OR a due proportion thereof, in order
70 satisfy their DEBTS.
The executors OF this succession we're
never discharged from their trust; they are,
therefore, amenable to this court, and can
stand in judgment.
The court decreed that Bogart shall re-
cover from the succession of Wilhelmus
Bogart, represented by b. w. Conger and
+. II. Foley, testamentary executors of this
deceased, the sum of Sc, $50, with five Der
cent interest per annum from January 26,
1860. till paid less cash received from b.
CART of Sl443 -; from l.. II. JOseph's no.e
slooe; from I. Il. Wards note, 1881 80;
from McHattOn's note, $40 70; from D. b.
note, s213l a. udyment for costs agains.
defendant
sixth District Cour;-Judgment has Gone
Against the City.
In al the cases tried in this court last |
week against the city for the refunding of |
licenses illegally collected, Judgment has |
been rendered against the city Mayor |
Flanders, in his testimony in one of the |
cases tried heretOtore-that Of j. A. Walker
IS. the city OF New OTieaas-said that the |
institution OF these suits had damaged the |
citv's credit. The decision of the suits
against the city would greatly embarrass
her. These SUITS are all for unappealable
amounts, and the Judgment OF the jury be-
ing final in each case, aud the city having
10 means to meet them, they would, there
lore, rest ds Judgments over the city.
Eighth District Court.
Application has been made to release
Eugene Phillips from the insane asylum,
and the rule comes up to-day.
Seventh District Court.
In the case of Caspard Lurse VS.. CT.
Buck ct al, Judge Wharton Coilens has
rendered the following decision:
he plea of prescription must prevail
Though the sale complained OF was legally
IbJect to revocation on the ground of a
fraudulent preference given to the vendee
- the prejudice OF the vendors creditor. it |
was intended and executed as reality. ard
lot as stimulation to cover the property
md shield it from the action of the other
reditors. They allowed more than wear
o elapse before bringing the revocatory |
ction. and thereby lost their right to have
he sale annulied. Judgment for defendant.
Inns suit was brought to have declared
i've lots of ground in the First District. the |
property of John Wibel, and all mortgages
hereon, null and void
In the case OF John L. Michel VS.. John
Kaiser ct ais, owners Of the Magazine
treet railroad. the defendants have ex-
"pted TO plaintiffs petition on the ground
mong others
The petitioner does not show that the
RECEPTIONS had anything to do with the
urcnase. other than to go security for the
cal purchases of the property, and no legal
ability attaches TO the petitioner
That the plaintiff must be forced to claim
nder the first or second Offering: he can
OF claim under both.