New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-12-02
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, DECEMBER l, 1873.
United States Circuit Court.

| 10 New orleans; that March ID, 1871, tney
issued bonds, secured by mortgage, t.
Cakes Ames and +. D. Morgan as trustees
that in the change of name of the road thu
mortgage was recognized; that plaintiff
and S. L. Post were elected trustees i,
place of Ames, deceased and Morgan, re
signed; that second mortgage bonds were
issued to H. j. Gardner and Peter Butler
I who, on default, brought suit and causet
the road to be sold, thus divesting it OF it,
corporate franchises. Orator prays that he
as trustee, may administer his trust of prop
erty ON the west side of the Mississippi
that an order Of sale be allowed and the
first mortgage recognized as paramount.
l. supreme Court.
| The following decisions were rendered:
| REHEARINGs REFUSED.
No. 4i52. State ex rel. V. Allan ct ais. VS.
James Graham, Auditor.
| No. 1874. Succession OF j. X. Elgee.
No. 47l0. Commissioner of Emigration VS..
C. L. Brandt ct ais.
No. 3699. State ex rel. Blakemore, Wool
bridge & Co. VS.. James Graham, Auditor.
No. 45S4. Mary Clark Winter VS.. II. Tou
node, public administrator.
No. 40I9 Stackhouse VS.. Zuntz.
REHEARINGs GRANTED.
Nos. 37Ol and 1862. New Orleans, Mobile
and Chattanooga railroad vs. city of New
/
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELING.
No. 1929. Howard, Preston & Barrett VS..
| William II. Simmons appellant.-From the
| Fifth District Court Of Orleans. Rehear-
ing. The court adheres to its original
| opinion.
Justice WHY dissenting.
| No. 1887. In re succession of j. NJ. Cabel-
| lero, opposition Of j. NJ. Cute, appellant.
From the Second District Court of Orleans.
| Rehearing. The securities not having been
cited, the judgment against them was i'm
properly rendered. 6 n. s., 635; La, 43i;
A., 50. The judgment is therefore modi-
fed by annulling the decree against the
sureties, and in other respects to remain IN
| disturbed.
| No. 277S. William Grant, curator and
| appellant, vs.. Norton & Macauley-From
| the Fifth District Court of Orleans. Mo-
! ton to dismiss the appeal on the grounds
that all the parties are not included; that
| the citation is defective and that the year
has elapsed, is granted &c. P. SOB, 567) and
appeal dismissed.
No. 1862. James Reid, appellant, VS..
Louisiana State Lottery Company.-From
the Superior District Court. Motion to dis
| miss appeal refused.
BY JUSTICE TALIAFERRo.
No. 1923. Eugene II. Levy, appellant,
VS.. Pike, Brother & Co.-Rehearing. The
deposit being gratuitous one. the deposit
tary is not to be held to that rigid account
ability he would have been had the con-
tract been one of hiring. c. c., 1887, 1888.
Judgment first rendered reversed and the
jud gnent Of the district court affirmed with
costs.
Mr.. Justice WHY sdheres to the original
opinion.
No. 46l3. City of New Orleans vs. Robert
J. Ker, appeliant.-From the Superior Dis
trict Court. Suit to enforce the payment of
taxes. Answer, that the amount is more
than the city is aut horiZed to impose, the
rate of taxation for 49, being two per cent:
that by publication in the REPUBLICAN it is
cited tor 1854 80; that the Judgment could
not be for more than the amount which he
was. cited; that he is worth $25, $50, which
at two per cent would make his tax $5I9.
The judgment was for $S04 80. The case is
remanded for further proceedings.
No. 1908. State ex rel. F. A. Monroe, ap-
pellant, VS.. E. Meunier-From the Superior
District Court. The relator claims that he
received plurality of the votes cast for the
office of judge OF the Third District Court,
and was commissioned by the Governor
November 81, 1872; that he was in posses
sion of the office until December II, 1872
when he was elected by the defendant. A
peremptory exception is filed by the de-
1endant, setting forth that he was duly
cial proceeding; that the intrusion act does
not embrace this case, and that petition dis
closes no cause of action. The district
court sustained the exceptions, the judge
refusing to recuse himself to which relator
excepted. The court refused to allow the
exception to be fled as disrespectful. We
think the rulings of the court were correct.
See Colin VS.. Knoblock; Bonner VS.. Lynch,
% A. Judgment affirmed.
M i7I7 ,IOhn II Hubbard Susan u
Moore, appellant.-From the Fifth District
Court Of Orleans. Motion to dismiss on
the ground that the bond was not filled up
in the space lett for the name of the surety.
The surety's name is mentioned in the body
of the bond, and he signed it with the prin
cipal. Motion overruled.
No. 47S7. State ex rel Mrs. Sarah Rich
ardson, appellant, vs. the Judge OF the
Fourteenth Judicial Decentralization en-
joined an order of seizure and sale, and the
injunction was dissolved. She applied to
this court for mandamus ordering the court
below to grant suspensive appeal on a
bond of $500. The relator can only avail her
self OF a suspensive appeal by conforming
with article SIS of the Code of Practice
and giving bond exceeding by one-half the
amount of the judgment. Rule discharged
and relator granted an appeal On furnish
ing the proper bond. Justices Howell and
WHY dissenting.
by JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 1923 State ex rel. F. G. Mahan vs.
Judge Of the Fifth District Court of
Orleans.-The relator asks a writ OF pro-
hibition, on the ground that the order of
sale is beyond the jurisdiction of the court
qua after suspensive appeal was taken.
Writ made perpetual.
No. 4756. Mrs. Elizabeth Evans, wife of
John Mullahy. VS.. c. 5. Sauvinet, appel
lant-Froms the Fourth District Court of
Orleans. Motion to dismiss appeal over
ruled.
No. 1881. City of New Orleans VS.. Sala-
From the Superior District Court. The
question is, can the defendants be taxed,
having pail a license of $1,000 to the State!
The provisos in the acts No. 42 of 1871 and
No. II of 1872 refer simply to the license
tax. and not to taxation on the property,
capital. ETC., of insurance companies. Judg
ment affirmed.
No. 433S-In re Commissioners of First |
Draining District praying tor homologation
of the assessment roll. Appeal from the |
Seventh District Court OF Orleans. The |
questions were settled in the |
case of the Draining Company, ii A. $40. |
Ordered that the judgment appealed from
be reversed and the opposition dismissed; |
also further ordered that the assessment |
roll, except the portion designated as "Book |
No. 2 b." be approved and homologated,
and this approval operate as judgment |
a gainst the property described and assessed,
with ten per cent additional for costs and |
fees. Justice WHY dissenting.
BY JUSTICE wYLY.
No 4712. FRANCOIS Lacroix VS.. judge of |
the Fifth District Court.-October Is, 1872, |
the court below set aside the suspensive APP |