New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-03-21

the lease, the tenant must suffer such re-
pairs to be made etc, &. G. c., 200. This,
taken in cOnnec ton with article 1893. which
prescribes the duty of the lessor, in the alb
sence of express stipulations to the cen
trarY, explains the reasonable duty of each
Of the parties. THE lessor ought to make,
during the continuance of the lease, all the
repairs which may acciden sally become
necessary" Now, if the lessor ought TO
make such repairs, il is very fair, and con
sequently reasonable, that the lessees ought
to permit him 70 do so. The shpula-
ton that the lessor in this case was
TO make no repairs. WAS intended lOr
her own benefit one which, 1t appears,
she was willing and anxious 90 waive, and
which the lessees had no right to object to.
provided it did not seriously interfere with
their business can not discover that two
days work in the house could have in uIed
the lessect. inaoLnucb az much. II not the
whole of that time would necessarily have
been occupied in moving their stock OF
heavy goods. They had previously written
a letter stating ther willingness TO vacate
the premises more than one month before
the expiration OF the lease. if the lessor
desired it. and they certainly should have
been willing to permIt a workman to com
mence repairing two days before.
They refused 70 do so. and thereby caused
loss to the lessor OF some rent, which it is
shown would nave been paid by the new
lessee, had he been able 70 take possession.
The evidence shows that the workman re-
guired about fifteen days to make the re
pairs. IiantlfS witnesses state that the
workman was sent somewhere about the
tweutr third Of September. Defendants
say he was sent on the thirtieth of Septem-
Der, ! have no reason to attach more faith
to one set OF these witnesses than to the
other and will therefore divide the time in
dispute, seven daTs. BY this calculation
the basis will be three and = half days.
The work required fifteen days. and CAUSED
q boss of BIB in rent. SuppOsing then
that the lessons workman had gone to work
three and half days before the expiration
Of the lease, it would have required eleven
and half days of the new lease term TO
complete the work. This. then, at the rate
of Sll1 for fiftean days work, would make
the loss caused By Cassidy 4 MIllers re-
fusal to permit the work TO begin three
days and q half earlier amount to $26 bG1!,
for which there must be Judgment, with
costs, as prayed for.
siath District Court.
In the case of Smith & Goldsmith W. the
Union National Bank, recently decided by
Judge Saucier, there were presented several
features which will be found of especial
interest to the mercantile and banking com
munity The checks, which were paid by
the bank so Smith 4 Goldsmith's clerk on
the latter's Endorsement, were drawn to the
order of the Commercial Cotton Press of
which Smith & Goldsmith were prOprietOrs.
Counsel for bank cOntended that the checks
being thus drawn, were in reality 90
bearer" for the Commercial Cotton
Press" being no person, was OF no more
effect than if there had been inserted no
name whatever. The court held that the
law of usage gave evidence to the bank
that the words Commercial Cotton Press"
represented the. firm name of Smith
Goldsmith, and failure on the part ct the
bank to recognize this principle could not
adjudge it bIameess. That it was clearly it's
duty to require the check to be indOr7ed by
the firm, or some party duly authorized to
do so, and this il was proven it did not do.
In the case of same plaintiffs against the
Crescent City Bank. involving an almost
similar principle. it was shown that the
bank teller would not pay the check with
out an assurance from some person known
to him, that the person presenting and in
dOrsing the check was authorized to do 80.
The latter accordingly called in a gentle
man, who not only identified the clerk, but
himself Endorsed the check, WheTeupOn it
was paid.
In this case the court held that. although
it might absOtve the bank from eventual
liability. it gave to 1t no right 70 pay the
check, and accordingly Judgment was given
in favor of plaintiffs against the bank, and
in turn there was also given judgment in
favor of the bank against the party who
last indorsed the check.