New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-03-28


deserved for further adjudication here
after.
p. Rogers vs.. tug Reliance New trial
Drdered. and judgment for Ebellant for
&4s.
Supreme Court.
In the case of Robert D. Urquiart vs.
N. Carvin, Associate Justice WHY deIIv-
cred the following interesting opinion
The plaintiff, whs sued the defendant,
Che surety on "a release bond, in his case OF
provisional seizure against Mary L. Green,
appeals from the Judgment rejecting his
demand.
The plaintiff contends that the bond is an
ordinary conventional obligation, and on
the principle as one binds himself so shall
he be bound he is entitled to recover against
Che defendant.
The difficulty Of this theory is the doubt
whether the instrument can be regarded as
an ordinary conventional obligation.
How can the plaintiff demand the enforce
9nent Of a convention or contract to which
he was not a party!
Where is the aggregGjio mentium between
Che plaintiff and defendants
It is not pretended that he gave the sher-
gft a power of attorney to contract Tor him,
and as public officer the sheriff was Who'll
Sy without authority to make contracts of
this character. 1t was no part of his duty
81 y
Git.
Without authority 10 bind the plant III,
how can il he pretended that the sheriff
could consent for him, or. on his behalf
make valid communicative contract with
Che defendant, or party Tor whom the de-
gendant was security.
Viewing the bond as merely commute.
Give contract. we are of the opinion that
She plaintiff must recover upon it. because
not being party thereto, i was not bind.
In on HIM: There was no reciprocal obll-
gaton on his par. Mcurrlng no obligation
Hllhsell' there existed no communicative con-
STacs peyWeGh MN ana me party Ior whom
ene defendant ~ security J!dguen:
alarmed.
superior Dis'fIe' Court.
SIale 81 Louisiana eT rei. q. Rosen "erS
vs. Charles Clinton. Auditor. --AppIication
sof .cr5m ,egsl $50 ST ,"''oa :"
Sc S 10 '"'' ~ -''''''' was
Feiused: =,
So, s-oIi'I Nt ''"lT l.o.to.! IN p"aS a. -
sfdnh mooi"-'u"g ihe"o ioI pam ''i'. IA
Jnhctioh hlade peipetuail anu defendant o.
~s sT " P"S 30 plal fIE @ToyV uaLIaSe'
Hho va . g SIi " =! W: W"
n'oni =. 2HiolipH' q, oUoM az James
~ va nIa T a "a d" ems
bHe Dodto u! souoo' ullecUots came up Oh an
SPPicad'! .3 ''5 WI. "a .ld p 20
lnpvi 'no 'lui,iihls '!"toI VI 'anancc 70
psS an9 "-nou.' ~ JuIsnii en' ptotIously
60, aga!rSo INC 9ehoo. oo"i" Al me
NlS.h ISL SV NoulC' .eoI I'9on'
SldUe Vi Ao9lsla. .i vs.. y. Il. L C
@AHPo"1 s I"no " 'no up S SIno C HuI
,,ioi~+;s sai g. |.,J ~ W ~, i;@l4,1,
4: S ~ ., 80 ~ Nc I a.
s,gJ;r' .H ~ ,nI Satt ti"i hI'
"a 90 wv" sno'eon' "HN ""' ""'1"'
secop5 n,s,r,c, s.ov,,.
Ih" following SuccesslOns have been
opened IN this cour:: Henry Schipmar, Jo-
seph keafns. Pierre Aaudet, George Hott-
man. Magda!ena. bis wife. and Magdaiena
Jloifman, his daughter: Amelia Marine. de.
ceased wife OF George i. Marine: John
barry. valentine Scham0ack, Jean Lous.
taaneau.
Fourtn Disfflct COURT.
,IuiCo fynch read the follow.rr 10.
eision:
j. L. Rroaiweil rs. Henry Snit', q. ~ -
sI'he plaintiff. a resident of This CITY aIl.ras
that Henry Smith and ton other narsor,s ali
residents of the parisb of Conrordia arc
Indebted IN hin, sanb IN a oo,.+a;o -;
sum. the amount maxine aItoga+Ler -
Sii.a 30 Thai rho cod Ieb., ava ~ ~.
sLc sail nartiee -o- tLo poT,,,or. 81 ,o,Is
rarr exnenses for = nIon+st;on cnI+i,,a,oa |
IN Them during tbo vdor ,S-0 Tbat .Iorn
are now within ,he inr;si;otion ~ r. c,T,r. |
sortv halo. of cotton s';n,,od - 4, 7 g 4,
a. Co, mercantile firm, If +bis air. j., .Iss |
name of W. H On6en. +ha. tLa Ia ,n-tnr !
forms mart Of tie cron nf tbn vear nf IN. !
plantation cultivated Nv said 1arties and !
that petitioppr has a nriL-irege mon the said |,
forty bales of cotton. or ON fbe nrocead. ,t |
sale thereof for said debt. He nrays ;ha. |
the parties he cited to answer this demand I!
and that a writ of seQuestration issue |