New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-25

husband for $4,000, alleged to be for mo
neys Of her separate estate, received BY hin
and converted to his own use. Certain
creditors of her husband intervene and con
test her claims There was Judgment il
favor of plaintiff and the intervenors ap
pealed. Taliafero, judge.
1t appears that the plaintiff in this sui
obtained judgment for $1,000, against hel
husband, on May II, 1869, on account Of
paraphernal rights, and that she claimed
at that time no larger sum as owing to hel
by her husband. The present action was
commenced on November g, following
and on the eleventh of that month, t6s
husband, by notarial act, transferred to
his wife the property in condensation as a
ddhon en- payment of the claim against him
OF S!3,O0O. The evidence in the record, We
think, tends to raise well founded doubts OF
the fairness and commences of this claim
set up by the wife. It is shown that the
rights now set up by her, if bona fide and
unsatisfied, existed anterior to the time OF
her commencing her first suit against her
husband, in which she claimed only the
sum OF $1,000. There is nothing whatever
tending to explain an omission so anon
al0us and unusual as that of praying judg-
ment only for an inconsiderabfe part Of her
demand, the whole Of which, as alleged in
her petition in the first suit, was in danger
OF being lost from the embarrassed condi-
ton of her husbands affairs. &
'lf one demand less than is due him, and
do not amend his petition in order to aug
ment his demand, he shall lose the over
plus" c. p, 156, IA L. r. lao, etc. The
law reprobates multiplicity of actions,
and aims to protect parties against the an
noyance of repeated lawsuits in regard to
the same subject matter.
1t is therefore ordered that the Judgment
of the district court be annulled. :
Meters VS.. William B. Morris g. Co.,
Agents of the Home Mutual Insurance
Company of New Haven, Connecticut
Appeal from the Fifth District Court, par
ish of Orleans.-This was an acton to re-
cover $500 on policy of insurance taken
by the plaintiffs on certain property of
theirs, subsequently destroyed by fire. The
answer was a general denial. The plaintiffs
had judgment, and the defendants appealed.
Justice Taliaferro, in delivering the
opinion of the court, said:
1t is commended, on the part of the de-
Tense, that the plaintiffs have not complied
with the requirements necessary to enable
them to recover, viz: notices of loss and
preliminary proof.
The evidence, we think, shows state of
facts that obviates that necessity. 1t is
shown that on the morning after the occur
renee of the fire, by which the plaintiffs
buildings were destroyed, the accident was
made known to the secretary and agent of
the company, Morris, and that the latter
promptly ignored all responsibility of the
saying that the policy had within
q few days been annulled, on account of
the non-payment of the premium. At the
time the contract was entered into, the
agent was requested to send the memo
randum bill to the treasurer of the society,
who would pay it, to which the agent re-
Piled, "That is all right"
Payment Of the premium was not exacted
1T the time of making out the policy. That
instrument was made out, as the agent
states, about February 7, 1868, and was put
into the safe subject to call. The clerk of
the company was instructed to collect the
premium, and he testifes that he went
several times to the hall of the plaintiffs
for that purpose, but failed to find any per-
son there representing them. We do not
think, under the state of facts shown, that
plaintiffs lost their right under the contract.
See the case of Pine VS.. the Merchants
Judgment affirmed.
Stephen X. Fowler VS.. the succession of
!. g. Gordon.-Justice Taliaferro, the or
IAN OF the court, in passing upon this case,
avs: While this suit was pending to en-
Orce claim against the succession of j.
J. Gordon, the heirs were put in posses
ion of the property under a judicial parti-
ion, and the executor rendered his final
ccOunt, which was duly hOmologated, and
le was discharged from the administration
f the estate. After this, the executor ex-
opted to the further prosecution of the
uit against him. The court sustained the
hot fyoop To ba
or. but reserving the right to the plaintiff
0 make the heirs parties defendant.
From this Judgment the plaintiff ap-
ealed.
The heirs had the right to demand the
eizure OF the property from the executor,
nd he had no right to refuse it. II the
laintitf to this suit, which was pending, did
ot require the bond, the heirs were not
ound to give it. By accepting the success
ion and going into possession each heir be-
anne indebted for virile share of the debt
~ this partition the plaintiff is not remedi-
ess. He can make the heirs parties defend
mt and receive judgment against them
)intly for whatever sum that may be found
D be due him by their ancestor.
The judgment of the parish court, decree
lg the partition and ordering the parties to
e put in possession is affirmed.
Eighth District Court.
A number Of applications for mandamus
n the Auditor by various parties were set
or trial on Friday, April &c. Each ask
hat the Auditor may be commanded to
,sue a warrant on the Treasurer for the
ayment of the amount Of vouchers and
hecks held by each, drawn against the
ontingent expense account Of the Legisla-
IRE on the last appropriation of $4,000.
.mOng those who apply are F. A. Ducros,
Dewitt c. Brown, Francis j. Frank, T. S.
carton and others, the second of these
aving about $1,000 of these vouchers in
is possession, and the remaining men,
ers various amounts.