New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-29
that her husband might also be cited to aid

| the interrogatOries, on motion they We're
| taken for confessed, and a judgment against
her was accordingly rendered. On appear,
the Judgment in this case was set aside, on
the ground that the wife had not been au-
thorized either by her husband or the court,
and the ca se was remanded. to be proceeded
with according to law. The plaintiff then
obtained the authorization of the court for
her to defend the suit, and then Judgment
Was taken against her
1t is now oontendeTl that the court could
not give the authorization, as the husband
was not absent nor had he refused to an
thorize her-that he had never been cited
as the law requires, and therefore his wife
was not properly in court. These objections
seem well founded i'll law. 1t is true. in
Henry VS.. Blice, II An. 59l, it was said
that it is only wheE the answers of the
party garnished are traversed that the pro
ceedings parta &e OF the character of a legal
controversy. and it is then intimatcd that
the wife, il q case where the answers are
not trayerseh, or where she fails to answer
need not be authorized by her husband or
the court. But the garnishnent process is
certainly Il Soit-,hcre must be q petition
and citation to get the garnishee before the
court; and then follows Il Judgment i'll &C
cUrdance with the evidence. If the gar
nishee contesses that he or she is indebted
either expressly or by making detanit, u
party so contessing.
The wife can not bind herself by a con
tract without the authorization of her hus
band; ncither can she be sued without
citing her husband TO authorize her to de-
fend the suit: how. then. can she confess
Judgment without the authorization OF her
husband, eithtr expressed or implied. This
litigation on the part OF the garni>hee seems
to be only for DELAY: but we have no right
tn AZ no IL N,rTn In
declares: - When one intends to sue a mar
ried woman for Il cause OF action relative
to her own separate interest the suit must
be brought against her and her husband.
Should her husband be absent the plaintiff
must demand that she be authorized by the
judge before whom the suit was brought.
G. Z. 2G6, > An. Isl, 9 An. la7, | An. go.
There is nothing in the record to show thar
the husband was absent.
Il Is therefore ordered and atliulgcl thai
the judgment. OF the District Court be re.
versCd, and that tie case bc reElanded in
order that tie husband of the garnishee
may be cited according 20 law.
Amanda Il. Richardson VS.. Mrs. Z. +.
Barrow; Lehman, Newgass & Co. vs.. same
ct ais Amanda r. Richardson and Leh-
man. Newgass & Co. having obtained iudg-
ment against Mrs. Z. E. Barrow. were pro
ceeding to execute their judgments when
John j. Barrow, the husband of Mrs. L. L.
Barrow. instituted the present suit. He
AYERS that he is the tutor of his minor chill
dren ny a farmer marriage. That he owed
them Sl0.GJG, as the heirs OF his former wife.
IN consequence % hGylngreceivcdS $4,000 be-
longing to her ard used il for his own benefit
and that the property now N the name OF his
second wife. aud against which ncr cle,i-
itors are proceeding, was burdcned with tie
tacit mortgage in favor OF his first vie for
the sum OF $4,000. as the same property
had belonged to nlm.
He AYERS that lie is totally ins0ivent md
prays that tic proceeds Of the sale Of the
property be paid 10 him rs TIE tutor OF his |
children, as the tacit moItgag" before men !
toned is superior il rank TO that Of the !
creditors OF his second wife. TAls might |
be a convenient arrangement for him, bIt
what would become ct the security stuhi /,
OuSly provided ny the wmakcrs for Tie |
rights of the minors To pay 4 debt due |
by himself 70 his children, lie desires that |
the proceeds o: property subject to Il tac- /
to secure said DEBT be paid to !
him, the debtor, who is insoivent. Ii is the |
duty OF courts 10 see that the rights OF |!
minors are nos sacrificed, especially with !
their aid.
The Judgment OF the lower court reject
ing the plaintiffs demand is correct. 1t is |
therefore ordered that the Judgment Of the |
lower court be affirmed. With costs Of ap- !
peal.
Third District Court.
Tie facts OF an appeal from the Judgment !
of Justice OF the Peace MontamaJ are as iol-
lows: The plaintiff. Naerhig. fled a suit Tor
q sGm less than $40. tie defendant recon
vened. which demand in reconventicn the
Justice refused 10 entertain on Che ground /
that the tax allowed should first be paid. a. |
n case OF an OH ginal s!!it, and the Justice
also refused an appeal. a maudamus was
hen asked for ard IN granting it yesterday
Judge Emerson held that q Justice coul, not
,xact tax Oh Plea OF unconventional de-
nind, as 1t must he part of the original
ult as much as any o,her answer.
Fifth District Court.
In the case Of Mrs. Rhoda White vs. Nyra
lark Gaines, claiming $4,000 as trans
cree OF an account for attorneys fees, vOill-
ninrns testimony was taken on Wednesday.
sixth District CoHr;-.,ait for Hamaaes.
Mrs. Wilhelnina Magsemner wife Of
Joseph Kaiser, and Joseph Kaiser. her hus-
,aUd, have entered salt in this court against
Diin Steib, &. 5. S.uvinct. Civil Sheriff
Peter Kaiser and Joseph hreIger to recover
he sum Of $l2,G33 03 damages. Petitioners
nd children were elected from their home
nd premises under an order of court, and
II their furniture, clothing. etc. thrust ont
+ the premises and carried away. When
ctitiorers were directed 10 be restored to
he posse -sion of the IlGUsr and property,
lany of the articles seized were missing
A suit has been fled III this cCurt bv ii
arty who claims that he was indicted 20
arr with portion q his interest in q sal
1g vessel, Tor y consider alton conn ,riSiag
creral hundred shares Of stock in the Ne,g !
orleans Paving and Improvement Com
ANY, together with Tie promise OF & stu;.-
ION as enPioye Of said company, at $40 per
aE IG seems, according 10 the alterations !
I plaintiff. that not only did the stock |
rove worthless. but tn" situation promised !
as not been forthcoming, and. therefore.
e now claims the return. by course OF law
his vessel or his money.
evensh B;s.-;cs Ceurt-M. Tcn-o, Come
Again.
John T. Michel has entered suit in this ,
onrt against the Magazine Street Railroad ,
company lie be put III possession Of the road
M all the property belonging to it. He ,
Eers that on the third OF April, 49, . he be- .
ane the legal adjudicator and owner BY
urchasc at public sale made by the Civil ,
heritf; that the latter. in derogatinn OF his :
gal rights, subsequently pretended 80 sell :
nc property to certain pretended nurchas-
rs. Theodore j. judi, John Kaiser, Peter ,
,alser and Antonio II. Juttt, aud that ether :
arties, Charles Lndig, John Steib and .Jo- J
.ph krejger, pretend ~ have an interest in 6
ie property.
Petitioner alleges that the income Of the ,
Lagazine Street Railroad Company was !.
al is $4,000 per month, CT which profit he ,
as been Illegally deprived, and claims re- |
lbursement commencing at the date of
re pretedded sale. as special damages d
etitioner further demands the sum OF =
0O0 900 as actual v..idictive and ex-
npary damages. f
The facts Of t,l, case are as follows:
ichel purchased the road and failed to u
We the requisite security on the spot, but