New Orleans Republican., 1873-03-11

city of Paris by the consul general atore-
said be read as evidence IN the above NUN
be:ed and entitled suit.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom yesterday read the follow
ing important decisions:
Thomas +. Brown VS.. the Louisiaa Man
ufactunng Company
Plaintiff demands $500 with five per cent
interest from August Is, 1871. till paid. He
alleges that the company employed him for
a period Of two years, from July Is, 1871.
to superintend the erection of paper mill
in New Orleans, at salary of $500 per
month. He claims salary for two months.
beginning August l5 1871, and ending Oc-
tober Is. ls1I and reserves the right 10
sue for other months OF salary as they be-
come due.
He therefore prays 70. Judgment for s 800.
with interest as above stated, and Tor
costs.
The defendant pleads a general denial
and the prescr PtiOE of one year.
| find the contract sued on 10 read as toll
lowsi
Said company employs said +. +. Brown
as general suptriutendent:0 :0f the paper mills
in the city of New Orleans. He is TO erect
al machinery, manufacture all the paper
and 90 all and singular tbe duties required
for that purpose. 10 the best of his ability
and IN most careful and economical man
ner.'
{. G.. article 1874, declares that the az
tion OF workInen for the payment OF their
wages is preecrihed by one year.
In Nichols vs. Hare, s n 5. 497, the Sn-
preme Court held that lone who contracts
to go to another State and work rs an engl-
neer and attending TO the easting, erecting
4 Il
man whose claim is barred by one year :
l. ISL.
AS to any rights Of exemption from the
operation of prescription, see no practical
distinction between those who 20 to another
State and those who remain in tuis to erect
or superintend the putting UP Of machinery
Of any description.
Neither can | see a reasonable distinction
in the substantial employments OF an en-
gineer who attends TO the casting, erection
and puttiDg up Of machinery, and one em-
plOyed here TO superintend the erection OF a
paper mill, and to erect all machinery and
do all and singular the duties required Of
him in the manufacture OF paper.
They belong TO the same class OF en-
ployes, and are designated as - workmen"
by the code.
The plaintiff was discharged on Septem-
Der l3, A. d. 1871. Service of his petition
and citation was made on the president OF
the company. sued on the thlrtleth OF Nov
ember, 1872. More than fourteen months
had elapsed and prescription had occurred.
There must, therefore, be judgment sus-
tanning the plea OF prescription with costs.
In the case of Schaeffer VS.. ROsenthal
This is a suit for an in JUNCTION taken ont
by the plaintiff to stay the eXecutoIy pro
ceedings sued out by the defendant herein,
ROsenthal, against certain property located
in this city, upon which he says he has
mortgage importing confession OF Judg-
ment. 1t appears that ROsenthal had lOsnsd
Mrs Mary Ann Brown $4,000, for which he
took her promissOry note, secured by mort
gage. She subsequently married one Bass,
became demented, was placed in an asylum
under the supervision of the Sisters OF
Charity, and finally died. Her succession
was opened by her testamentary executrix,
but throughout the mOrtuary proceedings 1t
was called the succession OF Mary Ann Bry-
ant, which appears TO have been the family
ame of Mrs Brown, alias Bass. The effects
were sold under an order of the probate
court. Rosenthals mortgage contained the
pact of non 0ienGRdO, and he now alleges
that as all the proceedings in the settlement
of the succession were conducted in the
name of Mary Ann Bryant, instead OF that OF
Brown. he is not bound by them. nor pre-
cluded from resoTtlng to the hyrOthtcdrE
action based upon the non alienation past.
10 their brief IL is said tn i'll the proceed
ings leading to the succession sale there was
great irregularity. do not feel authorized
to review them. That duty belongs to the
court in which they occurred or to the ap-
prlate court. Any investigation here
would be entirely collateral, and therefore
not sanctioned by law. OmBti prGeSu DllJ?t-
tar rite ct s0ieRnitcr cssc Gct0 luce prO6Gt,n'
in cOntlariism, and judicial proceedings
are pres lmed 10 have been regularly and
properly conducted until the contrary be
shown by competent evidence and before
competent court. (Dangertield VS. Thurs
ton, n. s., 30: 5 N. S. 705; l3 L., 1876;
II An, $50; - An, 2ij; 3 An 1867
''Unul the contrary be proved, an order
to sell succession property, 1t Will be pre-
sumed, was regularly issued Succession
of Wadsworth, . A, 966l
The most serious difficulty Is presented by
the pact Of non alienando. The argument
of counsel on this point was able. because
sustained by very reasonable interpreta-
ton of the essential nature of the fact. |
am, however. unable to sustain his views.
the Supreme Court having held, in Michel
VS.. Delaporte, II An. 81, that when prop
erty subject to the pact forms part of the
mortgages succession, the probate sale ex-
tnguishes the incumbrance, and the mort
gagee must look to the proceeds. After the
death of the mortgage, Notwithstanding
Ullo pace, NHiCn LIDS IulI oEtCG OILY
his life, the property becomes subject to the
laws for the settlement Of estates, and must
be sold under them"
After sale the mortgage or privilege at
taches to the proceeds. See succession Of
E. CordOvielle, . A, p 297, where the
court held that, "by sale of succession
property, mortgages existing thereon be-
come transferred TO the proceeds of the
sale, and the purchaser of the property may
have the NOR ga ges erased from the records
OF the mortgage office by rule TO that effect
on the recorder of mortgages" There are
many other authorities to the same effect.
not necessary 20 cite with more partic'..
larity.
There will, therefore, be judgment per-
pctuating the injunction at plaintiff . cost,
reserving 20 him any rights he ma; have
against the proceeds of the sale of the sue
cession property of Mrs. Mary Ann Bryant.
alias Brown. alias Bass.