New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-29
THE COURTS.

United states Circuit Court
Charles Case, receiver, etc., VS.. G.. 7.
Beauregard ct ais. Continued until the
seventh Of June.
United States vs.. J. Mendez. Judgment
set aside.
Elk. Converse e tails. VS.. w. 7. BOardman.
The application for an injunction with
drawn.
Thomas johnson VS. steamer Bradish
johnson. Case submitted.
Chanelly g. Harris against steamer Belle
Ida. The Judgment of the District Court
affirmed and the libel dismissed.
United states District Court.
The assignees accounts in the matter OF
+. III. g. Taylor are approved, and he dis
charged of all liability.
The February term having closed the
marshal was ordered to pay the jury their
fees.
A. J. Simpson ct ais. vs. steamer Lulu d.
Proceeds, amounting to $4,000, ordered to
be distributed.
Norton & Tarleton VS.. Brandies & Craw-
ford. Submitted.
A. Garriga ct ais, owners of Sophie, VS..
steamer Emily B. SOuder In this case the
court considered that the collision, the par
ticulars of which were published at the
bringing of suit, to be the result of careless
ness and negligence on the part of both col
liding vessels. Wherefore, the damages
suffered by the brig be paid One-half by the
SOuder and One-haf by the Iecumseh.
The matter was referred for report to the
commissioner.
Supreme Court Opinions.
State ex rel. SimOnds VS.. the Judge of the
Sixth District COurt.-ChOppin, a Judgment
creditor of Wilson for SIS, issued execu-
ton and seized the alleged interest of his
debtor in the firm of j. S. SimOnds & Co.
He then fled petition, to which he made
SimOQds and the firm parties, IN which be
alleged that Wilson was a partner of the
firm; that the seizure of his interest Oper-
ated dissolution and a liquidation OF the
firm was necessary, and he asked for the
appointment of a receiver. A receiver was
appointed to whom the assets of the firm
were to be turned over. SimOnds having
departed this life his administrators, within
the legal delay, applied for an appeal which
was refused, on the ground as stated in
respondents answer, that the amount in
dispute was only the SIS due by Wilson to
Chopin.
The court says:
We think the judge erred. The matter in
dispute is not the amount of the debt due
by Wilson to Chopin. The defendant Will
son is not arresting the Judgment The firm
of Simonds g. Co. and SimOnds estate are
not in the position of the garnishees in Gus
tine VS.. New Orleans Oil Company, ID A.,
$40, cited by respondent. The matter in
dispute is the possession and control of the
whole assets Of the firm of Simonds e. Co
The question is whether they shall be turned
over to receiver or not, and it appears they
amount to over $1,000.
In Cuisines case, admitted that an ap-
peal would lie ''where third person in pos
session of property finds himself deprived of
it by the unlawful action of the sheriff in
Selling it."
And SO in case of Mills, - An, 48, it was
held that the value of property seized under
execution 1.-THE sale of which is enjOined by
a third person claiming to be Owner), and
not the amount of the writ, determines the
right of appeal.
The same was held in GOgreve VS.. Wild
hart, q A., 296, and a similar doctrine IN
succession of Rennebey, Is A., COL.
The same principle governs this case. A
judgment is rendered directing the transfer
to a receiver of the assets Of a firm. The
administrative alleging herself to be in pos
session and control of these assets; that
Wilson has no interest in them, and that
her interest exceeds $500; declares this
judgment erroneous and irreparably inju-
rlous, and claims an appeal
She seems to hav5 a constitutional right
thereto, for if the judgment be erroneous,
she will be unlawfully deprived of property
exceeding $500 in value. 1t is ordered that
the mandamus be made peremptOry.
Sixth District Court.
Mrs. Schiller vs. Reitmeyer.-This was a
rule to show. cause why property provision
ally seized for rent should not be released
on the ground that it was exempt under act
No. 80, passed by the last Legislature.
Cooley, il do not believe act No. 80
was intended to enlarge the cases in which
exemption Of certain property from seizure
existed before its passage. consider it as
Intended merely to exempt more property
from seizure than previous laws did. /
mean, if in any case under the law as it
existed previous to the act Of 1872, the
exemption could not be urged, under the
act No. 80 the exemptions can not be urged
either.
Under the old legislation certain property