New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-05-21

sel Court Will be open " euAtsuds uo!n
Ing for arguments.
Applicants for admission to the Dac Will
be examined Saturday.
Superior District Court.
State ex rel L. Stewart Dennee VS. James
Clinton, Auditor.-Mandamus refused.
First District Court.
State VS.. NJ Morgan.-False imDr.soE'
ment Verdict, guilty. 90
State vs.. Charles Rolins.-Bigamv. Plea
OF not guilty.
State W.. James Heneley-Carrying con'
cealed weapans. Capias Issued. I,
State vs. Caroline MitcheN.-Assaul sahd
battery. Plea of guilty Of assault. .,
State vs.. William Brown.-Iarceny. E-ea
OF not guilty.. Do.
state VI. John La.i,.e.-Larceny. Plea
OF guilty. ,.so.,. .,d
State ". Mary Sey,nore .-Assauis ana
battery.a Verdict. not guilty.
state rs. Joseph Vai!ador.-Burglarv ana
larceny. The accused refusing to answer.
a medical commission consisting OF Drs.
William IT, Watkins. 7. &. Richardson
and J. u. Cooper was appointed by the
court 20 examine into his physical cohdilt L.
STATE VIZ. Albert Miller. alias Conra" SIN
& air Forgery. Noile pro' elui cue GU
IL,
false pretenses. Information A'c" "n" p'''
OF guilty entered.
second District Court.
succcssions of Paul Anglade. Sainue!
Kohn and Rosna Halbriter, his wife. Mar
garet Morris ArOni, Mary Kuhn, wife OF Is.
Blaum. Charles Escotier. Patrick henry
Foley and John NJ. Fakes opened.
fifth District Court.
AV;+.han Jnip Connolly his
emit is based on a joint note made and
signed by two parties, payable to their own
order. and by them Endorsed. The PLAN
tiff now sues one OF the makers only lot
the whole amount of the note, Slpo. WIN
five per cent interest thereon from the ninih
day Of July. A. d. 1872. He subsequently
amended his petition. and sought thereby
to hold Connolly bound tor the whole n u.;
nv yirtue of his Endorsement. Under arti'
Gle 2OS5 of the Civil Code, 1t was neces:
sary in suing on a joint obligation that all
the oblipors should be made defendants, and
no Judgment could be obtained against any
one of them without providing that all joined
the obligation, or were presumed by law to
have done 80. This law was amended by
an act OF the General Assembly, NO. -,
of ISL by which holders OF such Oollga'
lions were authorized to sue one or more
oblipors separately for his virile share OF
the Indebtedness, without making his JOINT
Oblioors parties to the suit. The pialntln ID
this suit processes to have brought his actlon
under that act. The note sued shows upon
its face that the makers are liable only a,
such. and that the Endorsements created no
new nor additional obligations, and that
they were essential to the completion of the
note. They were, therefore. original con-
tracts ONLY in the sense the signing OF the
note was; in fact, they were one ana the
same act.
The ease of Bell vs. Massey, reported in
II An at page S3l. and which was cited
by plaintiffs counsel, does not sustain HIM
on principle. The court there held that
persons, is indorsed by each separately.
they will in the absence of proof to the con-
trary. be presumed to be commercial! part
ners, and so liable for the whole note.
Without stopping to discuss the logic by
which the court was authorized to deduce
such presumption from such an lndorse'
ment, Il is evident that had they not
presumed the indorsers were commercial
mariners the courts ruling would have
been different. In this case there Is no
allegation that the makers and indoors
ers of the note sued on are or were CONNER
cial partners. In the absence OF such an
allegation can not, even under the author
ity Of Bell VS.. Massey, presume that the
note here sued on is SOLITARY. Solidarity /;
never presumed, except in the obligations
of commercial firms. The note being tol
$lO6, and joint in form, and the act OF IS
authorizing the holder to sue each maker
for his share of the Indebtedness, 1t follows
that this court was without jurisdiction. a:
that share amounted to but SOB. Ink
owner of the note might have sued IN tins
court if he had cited both the Obligors. be
cause in that case he would have been au
thorized by law to sue the whole note. Ill
sues only one of them, and as the act o
1871 authorizes him to sue only for hi
share Of the debt evidenced by the note
that share being s53, it is clear that Thu
court is without jurisdiction. There mus
be Judgment of dismissal with costs. reserv
ing to plaintiff all his rights to sue on SAT-
note, in any court of competent jurisdiction