New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-04-05
THE COURTS.
Snnerinr District Court.

~ the case of } II. Handy. claiming
salary AZ Judge Of court in st. Mary PARISH
the peremptory writ OF maLddmu5 was re-
fused. Meantime the intervention OF IT,
y Mrutz has been fled. in which he claims
the office as well as the pay.
Crescent City Live Stock Landing ana
Slaughterhouse Company VS.. Jean NJ. and
Dnn1iuinuo Berthin.-On motion OF Semmes
a. Mott. OF counsel for plaintiff, and on
suggesting that the defendants have viola
fed the iniuuctiOns issued in this case since
the service thereof, II Is ordered tnat tle
said defendants show cause, II any they
can, on Monday next, the seventh instant,
at eleven o'clock, why they shali nor
be punished for contempt in having violated
the injunction issued and served III 'hi'
case.
The case of Frank VS.. Fasnaet is an ex-
ecutory proceeding against certain prop
,-ertv located in this city TO recover the sum
Of S25,Oi7 37l00, which the plaintiff al
ieors Is due him, with interest thereon.
The property, m0rtgaged to secure thepay-
ment of the amount claimed, was seizeu Oy
the sheriff in pursuance to the order OF
seizure and sale taken out. The defendant
came into court and asked for an injunction
70 stay proceedings under the said order on
fine ground that there had been an express
agreement with the plaintiff, not mentioned
in the mortgage act, that time would Oe
granted to him for paying the deot, ana
that this agreement was the principal IN
ducement to defendant to enter INTO the
contract creating the indebtedness. Inc
Injunction was granted, and the question
before me is should the motion to set aside
this Injunction be made absolute, requiring
the issue on the injunction to be tried sum
ruarily or should the plaintiff III injunction
be permitted to have the case put down on
the ordinary docket for trial
These proceedings grew out of the pro
visions of the articles 1872 and 159 OF the
Code of Practice. In taking out an lniunc-
ton under the latter article no bond Is re-
CURED but the defendant has given one in
this case supertluoUsly. Article 756. Code
Of Practice, declares that cases that are 10
be decided in a summary manner shall not
be set down on the ordinary docket, but
are TO be decided on days fixed tor the pur'
pose, and in a speedy manner.
Article AL says: The plaintiff against
whom an injunction has been obtained,
may compel the defendant to prove, IN a
summary manner, before the Judge, the
truth of the facts alleged in his Oppose
tion." This would seem to be simple
enough but counsel for the defendant
refers the court to the case of Cummings
VS.. the police Jury, q Ann, OIL IN which
the court held that the " only cases OF IN
junction which are to be tried summary.
are those in which no security Is required,
and as his client has chosen to give Dond IN
this case. he reasons theretr0m that this Is
- case in which security was required to be
given. He sued out the injunction under
article 1}9, G. p. and was not required 20
give bond. His having done so. does not
entitle him TO tho privileges accorded 70
parties proceeding under different proVl-
sions Of the Code Of Practice. II he takes
out a writ under that article he must DC
governed by it.
The bond given br him was super,fuou.
as the law did not require it. Its effect i
no. to bc passed upon here. but think the
reasoning of Justice WHY in Dawson V
Morton & Williamson would very well ap
ply. See - A. J35. ct seq. The bond III
Question was neither required by law no!
ratified by agreement. and can not be per
United to exercise any controlling influence
in the trial of this cause. 1t belongs 10 the
summary docket. and must be assigned a
day for hearing.