New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-02

the DEGREES in the case. The objection that
| the bill is defective for want OF necessary
parties is therefore untenable.
In reply to the objection that the state
| ments of the bill are too vague and uncer-
| tain, it is sufficient to say that if all the
! facts averred are true, they make out
| case. if the law, as claimed by the complain
| ants, is proved for them
| Was the possession of Labatut posses
| sion as universal legatee or as executor.
Did he take the property as legatee and be-
come the debtor of the legatee named IN the
| will of Porche, or did he take as executor
and trustee, holding the estate to be adj
ministered for the benefit OF the legatees!
The case of Bird Vs. the succession OF MIS-
Jones Is Annual Gl3) is relied upon by COM
plainants as decisive Of this case.
In order to vest the succession in UNI
versal legatee, SO as TO make him the debt
or of the legatees and creditors of the sue
cessiOn. there must be some deliberate act
on his part showing purpose to take pos
session as legatee. "Nobody can be com
PEELED to accept succession in whatever
manner it may have fallen to his share"
Code of 1868, page ltO, article II.
And where testamentary executor takes
possession as such under the appointment,
or by the authority Of the probate court,
the fact that he is also universal legatee
does not change the character Of his pos
| session.
When one who is executor and universal
| legatee under will takes possession Of the
! estate as executor, he will not be regarded
| as having possession in his capacity otlega-
tee; nor can he, without judicial authority,
| change the nature Of his possession. Bird
vs.. succession of Jones, Ann, CAB.
Under the ayerments of the bill, ! am
constrained by these authorities to hold
that Labatut holds possession of the sac
| ,.>fD nha and fV1yg N
not in his individual right; that he is bound
| to administer the SUGGESTIONS so as to exc
| cute the provisions of the wills of the tesla
| tors: that this trust property can not be
taken from his hands and diverted by his
creditors from the objects of the bounty of
the testatOrs to the payment Of the indi-
vidual debts of the trustee.
| | decide the nice and difficult questions
presented by this motion, and arising under
| the local jurisprudence of this State, with
| much ditfidence, buta at present advised.
| think it is my duty to continue the H.
junction heretofore allowed, and to over
rule the demurrer.
United states District COurt-In Bank
ruptcy.
| In the case of John Osborne, the facts in
| the petition were pronounced true, and the
simulated and fraudulent SALE first, of a
! tract of land in Rapides; second, a part OF
| the Dack concession Oh tuo 1OTtSSOluS tIdCl
| third, l25J 30-l00 acres IN township two,
range one, southwestern district of Lou
| isiana: fourth. all Of section fifteen on the
west side of Bayou Latanie; fifth, the in
| terest in certain lands purchased from the
estate Of Phelps at sEeriti's sale; this sale
between Osborne and Mary l.. S. Duval,
widow of William II. Osborne, was declared
void and annulle1, and the assignee is
ordered to cancel all mortgages, liens and
| ms hp
In the matter Of Louis Spreen the Re
corder of Mortgages of Orleans was or
dered to cancel all mortgages in the name
of Spreen in his certificate of the seventh
of March.
The Sheriff in the case of w. II. Wells.
is ordered to surrender all the furniture OF
the tug Quaker 10 the custodian. an0 also
the sheriff of Jefferson is ordered 70 sur
render 2555 barrels Of shells.
Property seized by the Sheriff n the
| Davis & jackson bankruptcy is ordered 20
be surrendered to the assignee.
Time to advise was taken in the suit OF
c. T. Buddecke against j. p. Becker.
SIKH District Court.
Marie Finley VS.. Board of School Di-
! rectors.-Plaintiti. school teacher. sued
for her salary. for being dismissed without
cause. Abiding to what is known as the
late school law. the court said: IL first
provides parish board of school directors
| for each parish. and for each ward what IS
called a district board of school directors.
Which of these two is answerable for the
debt OF the educational system, ! do not
! know-the act does not say. l have. how
ever. come 70 the conclusion that it was in
tended the board Of ward school directors
should be those Immediately responsible
and should have the immediate care of the
| schools. under tie control of the city board
| Of The
constituted corporations, given power 10
sue and be sued, to receive money and hold
| property. / am, therefore. OF opinion the
plaintiff must sue the ward board OF di-
rectors for her salary: and the present suit
must therefore be dismissed.
Duncan F. Kenner vs. the Sheriff Of The
Parish OF Decentralization to proven,
the Sheriff from selling certain property
seized for taXes.-It appears that the pro
pcrty upon which this tax was levied was
cont;scated By the United States govern
lnent and sold under the contscator
law, the proceed received by the United
States marshal and distribution O
them made. The testimony OF the [ iteC
States marshal shows that he pad ou1
of the proceeds the very taxes sued tol
by the city in this case. 1t is therefore or
dered that the Injunction issued be made
perpetual.
claiming to be the owners of certain prop
ertv on Orleans street. have entered sui,
against the city for $4,000. alleging that The
digging by the city of the drainage cana
on that street, from Bayou st. John 70 the
Metairie coad. has damaged said property
by excavations and deposits of water. mud
etc, TO such an extent as to render 1t value
less, and, therefore. the city should be com
PEELED to make good the loss which ha
been occasioned by its acts.
Eugene Staes VS.. the city of New Or
leans.-In this case the plaintiff sued the
city for salary as recorder of the Secont
District, claiming that he was elected il
April, 1870. 1t appears that in 1871 one o
the city Administrators origioted a pro
ceeding' at a meeting Of the Council, undo
which Staes was elected from his Office by
majority vote. The court, in passing upol
the case said:
The plaintiff was not removed under ;
resolution or ordinance. for it was though
by the Council that that form would be OF
.iectional, as the Mayor might interpose hi
veto. Therefore they adopted the pro
cceding' to get over the veto and by thl
means Mr.. Stacs was removed.
The question arises whether the Counci
had right 20 remove the recorder. Counse
for the city contended that under The
, eighth section of act OF 1871, amendin
: the act OF 1870 under which TIE new cit.
charter was framed, gives the Council til
power to remove all city officers, eXcep
the Mayor and Administrators. The plain
tiff. on the other hand, claimed that the re
corder was not included as one OF thos
officers subject to removal by the Counc1
under the act.
. | have carefully examined the acts O
1870 and 1871 10 ind out whether the of
GERS removable at the pleasure OF the COul