New Orleans Republican., 1873-03-27

terest from March 1, 1897, out OF the SAID
sugar and molasses. or the proceeds of sale
thereof, in preference to all other parties.
The evidence taken in this case is voluIni-
nous, and during its progress numerous in
teTesting if not novel points were presented
by cOunEe! Tor the consideration Of the
court.
While the learned counsel have displayed
much ingenuity and ability in presenting
their respective views with regard to the
facts and the law, nothing has been sug
gested by either Of them touching the
question OF jurisdiction. which l regard
as the most salient and important point to
be noticed. At the date Of the commence
mcut o. this suit the partnership dOmiciie
of Eaton X Barstow was in the parish OF
St. Landry: all the intervenors had their
domicile in the said parish. K. j. Gay &
Co., the plaintiffs, hcin. the only parties
having their domicile in the parish Of Or
leans. Neither OF the ya;tes excepted to
the jurisdiction of This court, but all seemed
dcsirous 20 have the suit tried here.
/! the litigan'> had the right TO select
tribunal before Which thei. dispute Is 70 ne
determined, Il their taoit or express CON
sen: could confer jurisdiction, wonld de-
:triIine this controversy On lis merits. Bat
such selection can not bo made. such con-
sent docs no: and can not confer upon this
court any power or authority not impaired
10 il by th. law. Ha. th. law invested the
Fourth District Court for the parish ot Or"
leans with the authority % tTy cause IN
which citizen. .: the latter parish Nre
plaintiffs and The defendants and lnteryen'
or. are residents d. the parish oi 81. La','
dry. " ben the property. though belonging
10 the defendants. las been e!0IGht 10 :h!'
paIish' !hink not.
article l.n. Code Of Practice. az amended,
reads ia follows: 1T ~ Ii general rule
in civil matter. la. one inNst be sued h"-
lore liza uw;: 'Gd:", that Is 10 say, before
:he :udG. ha.inE jurisdiction over the place
where hc has hi. C1BiCilc or residence, and
.!all not be permitted - elect any Gt.er
doiui,li. ur residence. Tor the purpose Ct
being sued, iu, this rule is subject to those
exceptions expressly provided by law"
Article. ,GS ..d !f' set forth those PX.cp-
tions. and the ease ~ nar is not among or
contemplated by either ~ ti0Sr ~" aEtl-
.jes Article l.. "as amended in 1851 ~
adding TO it the above clause prohibit
Jog the clerti"E q: dum!cte "r residence
tr. the purp0." a. being sued. Before the
above stringent amendment was engra!ied
upon the articl. referred to, and up TO the
year 1856, il had been vel! established by
numerCu, decisions that attachments and
demonstrations could be issued only by tho
court Of :he .teteadant's dOmicile. Thomas
vs. Dixon, :. l.. I2!: AoIlandec IS. Nicholas,
:. r..
This doctrine was overruied hy the case
Of Henning IS. steamer st. Helena, " a
3d.. IN which the Supreme Court says that
the ground upon which the matter in the
case OF Hollander Va. Nicholas il put is too
narrow and technical. The doctrine ennn-
ciated in the case Of the st. Helena is rec0g-
nizcd in Blanchard vs.. Davidson, A. 61i;
also. in the case Of the heirs Of Lalaurie W.
Woods. a. :565: il Dejona ys steamer
Osceoli, II A., Isl; and in the case OF Gltirn.
Smcdes & Co. -. Manning. - A., 20.
Two 81 tie justices O. the present court
concurrud III the "pin.vi. IL the lis. named
case.
Daring a period o.: twenty years su"sf-
Guent 10 !S5C the Supreme Court ah.n-
dnned {. rigorous Interpretation nt article
lt. of the CODE ot Practice, and allowed
creditor 70 appeal 70 such tribunals rs
could enforce and secure - him IN" bcHett
II his privileges. thus dis"Onnecting the ac-
ton il. p'rYGHGnl from that IN zen: upon the
privilege. Many 9. the latter series 0! de-
cisi, rs, however, if not all, were based
more upon necessity and eypedIaucr than
on a strict construction of the law. Three
Of those decisions were rendered since :he
MASSAGE q. Ihe act .. The nineteenth OF
March. 1851. which modified article ib2
aforesaid. IhaH at does Tut appear TO
have been considered hv the Supr, ne
Court rs hay.Eg effect. 1t vas approved
soon after tir il:aS-agt OF thc ordinance ii
secession. Il w"-, however. re-anacte: by
tie ney, code o, iS,4. This accounts t"r
the apparent Iia.egar! .. said act il me
decisions 81 the SunT. ne Cour. tr'm ih"
tame ot is rcor!aiiG4.inn ti1,r the s""-.-
,lu!, ui The .'ts.f. ~ - IA" r"-I $50. Since
the adoption al -. ..'uena,G arJi"i" By .tc
u, " code IN. cour- h... i'.tcruGeteG j. II az.
"Jrtianc. Win the DECISIONS anterior :"
800 and the !i'"rf: re.urc m"ntS .; ~"
sad alnrnde.! .'.;"l. hay. been cn!NH"Ch
by the atCislrn.. -. ~ Least. bE :. fac.a''u
.; l. ia court. !n y. cas" ii Roch"r'G" 4
CO.. AGENTS. -. Nnvrol C1i,'ry. ~ hn the
conrt he'll; tha. g.. ..;th District Court - t..e
,,ay:>h a. tr."a'.- ryd- y. ..It ,R".=Giri!".
!. grant any order niH..'"s "n lc Ga., ~.
a,.. n-Caue" his Gy',,i"i,e 49, IN ;r- pa',.;l
! Of :. .!a,n.o. a't ~. '!l> attachment n
;a.. ca~c. rr,a-. ina1e'y q 'oD-cVrat".y
, remedy, -hcu.. ..rr ben ;ss.l.'. - t,.g
| cunr; having :u!i-'..".!Un a. "a, ct,r.
THIS !u'"rp'- .atirN .; a!!r.o!" iy' All lie"
?, We, - ..Gur,. stems =. :" at.achE.,.'! l..
The l"ri-iy. et,,os 20 have hoDg'g. &.
! startled many ot he !r4#l rrrtes ion. :.U,.
to BE- :c-aGN.d a. s.n !nGo.:.:on "a sci!
| settled d.nt.inc and practice. ] Tcgrri It
onl" a. an innovation warranted ~ 2 80
tutorv elarturi. ot the current of '."-
,.sions g!tiat. ha. i,r!r. delivered bet
1870 and 1870. ..ni which were th'lascys-
! Innovations cn tho doctrine ;nbt ht.i .D-
tanned io- the - HrIlty-t!v: yeara anterior I"
i 1856. vithou: III. Iii: 9f 'he modification
affixed 20 article !Gt ot the Code 81 i'iac-
nee u! t-e I.." "a -, --1
! some cases. work SERIOUS inccnr"nl'nc".
| =. .os.r'r nv. or ,re mar; h ~, :, :,
| Ili;.1, - -};s - i nav lie co-,..r..c
: o.,. ,r.h il .nry'rt and s,r1,;
rL. n,,.,..;,.. y;n,y '.r.o,I uuou ring sew
.', r!',. !. avon y, raw. ,jiiffs,i-i,., ,.,,'
o:!r.'.,,..,,. l. :. MT ,,.y ~ -,
,i,;,t, cn,,r,,cf;,, il .be mora c'I,,a..
|..S., -, IL, .,.;,,r,, W., .h.