The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1872-08-03
ABSTRACT OF SUPREME COURT DE
CISIONS.
Monroe, July Term, 1872.
CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELING.

n. w. Turner, under-tutor, VS.. Is. r.
Oneal, Shift ct al.-That part of judg-
ment decreeing that the property be
sold subject to the general tacit mort
gage of plaintiffs, is annulled, and as
thus amended, judgment affirmed.
Amos Abrams VS.. A. G. Teague.-
Judgment for plaintiff for $G14 II, with
legal interest from judicial demand,
and for delivery of 1850 lbs. of lint
cotton baled, or for $50 35, with legal
interest from Jan'y 1, 1872. Attach
ment retained, privilege recognized
and unconventional demand dismissed.
Defendants costs.
and Stacy & acknowledgement amen
ded by reducing the same to judg-
ment in solido against the defendants
for $3.50, with interest from March 6,
1871.
Carroll, Hoy ~ Co. vs.. Eliza W..
Wooley.-Plaintiff's allege fraud in an
account filed by defendant as admins
tratrix, in that she did not account
for sum of money received by her
husband just prior to his death. It is
not shown that the money ever passed
into defendants hands, say the Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
La. Mutual ms. Co. VS.. Walters Il
acknowledgement annulled; plaintiffs
demand rejected, with costs of both
courts.
Jacob Citron VS.. Eliza Weil.--Divorce
suit from parish of Caddo.-s'An ex-
animation of the disgusting evidence
in this case, satitles us that both parties
are in fault. domestic broils are not
to be settled in courts of justice. If the
conduct of the party complaining has
been outrageous, the remedy must first
be sought in a reformation OF that con-
duct:''' NJ. LA; La. 421; 10 La. 251.
Judgment and verdict set aside, and
demands of both parties rejected.
c.. e. Alter VS.. J. 3. Pickett; Patllinl
Pickett, Tntervenor.-"If Article SO Of
the Code of Practice be in conflict with
the Act Of 1861, the latter being the
last expression Of the legislative will
relative to the jurisdiction of the courts
,utio,e persona, must prevail" In
this case the Court held that u garni-
shee could not be SUED, except in the
court of his domicile. Judgment an
nulled; and plaintiffs demand rejected.
Joseph II. Swan VS.. Ann l.. Gayle
atlmx. On rehearing. Suit to rescind
q sale for the ncn-payment of the price.
Filhiol, vendor, transferred to plaintiff
three promissory notes, endorsed "with-
out recourse,' on 9th February, 1867.
On 4th September, 1869, Filhiol made
to Swan deed of subrogation. Held,
that the subrogation was 4 null
lily, not having been made ut tho
time of the sale. All expressions
touching the resolutory conditions in
former decisions, have been used a,y,.-
e,le1o, and the court treats the question
us Il new one. Swan acquired no other
right than such rs is necessary to en-
force the payment of the notes viz:
mortgage and vendors, privilege. He
did not, II, buying the notes, take the
place of E'ilhiol in the contract of
sale. Former Judgment of this court
set aside; the Judgment of the District
court reversed and ;tnnullcd, and iidg-
ment for defendant, with costs in both
courts.
Temp1eman, Curator, VS. G. NJ. Pc
gues, Curator and f.. NJ. Daniel, III
tervenor On re-hearing - Question ::
"NNhether an action for the dissolution
Of n sale for non-paYment of the price
can be maintained if the notes given
FOR the price arc prescribed ?''
The right to dissolve Il sale for the
hon payment of the price, isis Il distinct
and independent right, not enforce the
payment, but to tecore' 6ach Tic ta'sR for
the l1on-fulti}lntcnt of the obligation of
buyer" Swan vs.. Gayle. "It Is chiefly
when collection of the notes cannot be
enforced, that the right is valuable" The
dissolution of the sale is not one acccsso-
ny to the notes, and does not perish with
them. Judgment affirmed with costs.
Justices WHY and Howe dissenting.