New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-03-20
THE GDLIRTs.
t;nitvd s,ntes Circuit Csust.

RGSOEE HON. W. WOODS, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
50 Eimbail vs.. Charlotte II. Taylor st
at,-Sni. discontinued as TO Spencer Field
and Mrs. willis. wife Of Msrsden.
@GyoRE BoH. y. II. DUKBLi, DISTRICT JUDGE.
EIl.rv Wead- and Eofibauer ys A.
Brown & Go.-Serdict and judgment set
aside and new trial granted. :,
Charles Case receive OF FIRST National
Bank of New Orleans w J. McNllhaiAs.-
Verdict for defendant.
William II. Gill ys Bali s. Curtis The
RIIowjno is fhe amended entry in this case:
Considering that q mortgage can be en-
forced in this court only by proceedings on
che equity side OF the court, 10 IL ordered
Saat the decree herein entered on yesterday
ms amended SO a. TO read as follows:
Ser reasons orally assigned by the court
a i. ordered, adiuRged and decresd that The
~taintiff. William H. gu. do hereby recover
Srep the defendants, =. ". Bal! and Frank
Gp Curtis. individually and III solldc, the
epm of $3.50, with eight per cent interest on
$500 from March /. 1874, and like interest
or $50 from October 5. Is7I. till paid. and
costs Of suit.
6. Male v.. y. 5. Cas..-DeMuErer
@SersuIsd
eHpyere CsHss.
&hiz court has adjourned "a MONDAY
@Axt AZ 40 A. NJ when decisions will he
S~,d Gases will be called or that day and
&xe6 for the cour. week. commencing WITH
Monday, April :. The usual nuinber OF
eases. however, will not ~ called. because
Sbe eleventh of April will be Good Friday.
Ths law has made this legal holiday, and
consequently no cases will he tvled.
IN the case sf Franklin A. Robert vs. Lu-
glen y. Coco, Bustiee A1rgan read the fol
I0wing opiIl0n:
An Nav. 1863. Coce obtained Judgment
AGAINST Robeps for 1888 IS. IN March, 1872,
H. issued execution and seized hereunder
a certain parcel OF land belonging to his
Judgment debtor.
Roberr -nien. ffls sale on the ground
Shat the land seized is all the property he
Gsvus: that the tract contain. nearly 100
acres: Iha. il 10 his homestead; that Il ia not
worth $4,000 and thar il is exempt under
wha. 10 known 40 the homestead law, from
seizu,e for She payment OF the Judgment OBJ
FSiusd agains. him, which was based Upon
IN ,nere ordinary debt.
Ehere vas Judgment in his favor PEI
Netuating the ajunetioA and the defendant
has appealed.
n reversal of the decree against HIM are:
O. That he can 90 behind the Judgment 20
&C.. when the allegations sued on arose be-
tween the parties.
, BECAUSE the allegation upon which
(soco's Judgment WAS entered having betn
contracted snterior 20 the passage OF the
homestead law IL is retroactive. ~ post
6ucto, and unconstitutlonal.
The first proposition is correct: the second
1, erroneous. We can examine as to when
an OBLIGATION sued ON was contracted, but
n does not follow that the act OF The Legt-
laturs in question is null and veld 1t
Rtands or falls upon the eOnstitutiOnallty or
unconstitutionalty of the law. IL IL I'M
eonstitutionals Appellant claims that mo
or most factO or retroactive law. nor any
law ippairing the obligation OF con
tracts snail I've passed. nor vested rights
be Invested. unless for purposes OF public
utility and for adequate compensation
made" True. This is the language
of the constitution: bu. we do not
geo that the law Of which he complains i'm
Nairs the obligation of his contracts or
Siivests him of any OF his vested nights:
his obligor is as much bound now, his
vested rights in and to Che property which
he has acquired are as perfect now as they
were when he acquired them. His security
fer the payment of his debt may have been
Unmarried by the law with reference 10
certain piece of property, but his rights I'M
der the obligation he holds have not been
interfered with. Il is his Tight-not his
security, unless the security form part OF
his contract, which is rot the case mere
(which must be invaded before he can evoke
the constitutional privilege upon which he
Selies. -,
Si0ns. .,
never recorded. Suppose between the rem
dition of the Judgment and the terl taclas
another and subsequent creditor had
taken a mortgage upon the property and
had caused it to be recorded, would TINS
have ipterfered with the defendants vested
Sicbts or Unmarried the obligation of his
contracti We imagine not. There is no
error in the judgment. II Is therefore al
frmed. with costs.
superior District Court.
State of Louisiana ex rel. John NJ. Bon.
Tler VS.. 3. J.. Lynch.-Susgensive apPea! al
lowed.
Accommodation Bank VS.. +. {. Mahan.
This case is still on trial.
The court has promulgated the following
order: ,.,
shirty minutes to argue such cases. II more
shan one counsel be engaged by defendant,
ehe counsel for plaintiff will be allowed
shirty minutes 20 open and thirty minutes
60 Closep diy:diu. the time as he may deem
proper
s4T one hour shall be allowed 10 such coun'
sci 20 argue his case, dividing she :lme as
he may think proper g.. >.
Ser cases. on the parties giving nouce TO the
Scrnrt before such argument commences.
Second District Court.
The SUGGESTIONS of Julian NJ. lsaaks' WI
Siam DoHgherty, Jules AuGusIe h Snls Ia,
uene Blanchard and mary Calitn n tT',sIi
gS,iFa If patrick DOnnelly, have oeen oHenec |