New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-30

| OF coal boat landings by city ordinance thai
are of great convenience to the public; per
mission to erect platform scale and ex
| penditure of $4,000; that the Legislature
passed an act. establishing such landings
now before the Governor to be signed in q
few days; that petitions have been pre-
sented to the city from persons inimical tc
petitioner, asking permission to erect
wharves at the Second District landing
that these wharves could not last if erected
that they would cause great damage tC
himself and inconvenience to the public
and prays for an injunction which is issued
in bond OF $1,000.
First District Court.
PLEADED GUILTY.
Assault with intent to kill elestine An
tome. Plea Of guilty of assault.
vERDIcTs.
State vs. Peter Williams-Larceny; guilty
State vs.. Michael Evans, alias Irish-Lar-
ceny; guilty.
State vs.. Charles Wiuiams-Larceny;
guilty. q
State W. Nathaniel Williams-Assault
with intent to kill; guilty of assault and
battery.
State VS.. William Davis-Larceny; guilty.
SENTENCES.
State VS.. John Martin and Joseph Turner
Larceny; one year each in Penitentiary.
Second District Court.
Decision by Judge Tissot:
Succession OF Ausite RACIAL, widow of
FRANCOIS Roubien.
The court ordered the sale of a lot of
ground in the Third District, which was
purchased by one Lewis for $5456, payable
One-third cash, balance at one anu two
years credit, in notes secnred by privilege
of vendors lien and mortgage on the prop
erty.
The purchaser declined to comply with
the terms of adjudication and to perfect
the sale, and alleges
|. There is no evidence that the sale in
question was necessary to pay debts.
9. The property having been adjudicated
to him for less than the appraised value,
and without the Intervention and advice of
q family meeting, the sale ia not binding
upon the minors, whose interests therein
are one-fifth of the whole.
3. He having bid for the entirety could
not be forced to take part thereof.
The court said the purchaser is not
bound to look back further than to the
order of the court ordering the sale, and is
protected by it. When the purchaser, be.
fore paying the price or entering in posses
sion, discovers illegalities in the proceed
ings which led to the sale, calculated to
throw cloud upon his title, he mas the
right to ask that the adjudication be set
aside.
The sale was necessary to pay taxes and
costs of administration. When the admin
istrator prOvokes the sale it is not necessary
the property should bring the appraised
They have at best but a residuary interest
in such estates as this, which can be ascer-
tanned only by a. tull administration and
sales made in the manner provided by law,
for sales under execution will be valid if
thus ordered and approved by a decree of
court.
The sale can not be annulled because
there are minors who have a residuary in.
tersst herein, whose shares have been dis
posed of. below the appraised value of the
same, without the Intervention and advice
of family meeting. 1t is binding upon
them.
l can not understand the third ground of
objection.
The rule taken by Henry, administrator,
to compel purchaser to comply with the
terms of the adjudication, is made alb
sOluto.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the folio wing de-
cisiOn:
Daniel & James D. Edwards vs.. Fair
banks & Gilman.-Plaintiffs obtained judg-
ment and fieri facias November Is, 1873, for
$l7,6 600 As against Fairbanks e. Gilman,
who, November 7, made oath they were en-
titled to $4,000 tor use of refinery, skill,
labor and patent, which was recorded,
The New Orleans Mutual Insurance Com
pany, intervening, alleges a sale for 81, 900,
November 8, 1872. and lease of the ma.
chinery. Plaintiffs allege this sale to be
nullity. The evidence is q lease from Fred
Del BondiO to Alcide Willoz, transfer to
Fairbanks & Gilman, which is also a sale of
the machinery: and also transfer to the
insurance company, right of redemption re-
served after two years from date. The in
,urance company leased to defendants for |
three years from November [, 1872. The
question is on the legal competency of the |
association to make such contract. De- |
,ember 81, 1872, it amended its charter to |
,Old real estate. The Revised Statutes,
lrticle 684, allows the same thing. The as |
ociation had not the right by the original
,harter. The amendment was nearly two |
months after the sale. Collins vs.. PelIorin,
A., 80; Hughes VS.. Klingender. IA A.. Si5.
These cases do not apply.
The evidence on delivery is conflicting.
Plaintiffs furnished machinery and work
ill August "a, 1873, some articles being fur
ished after November 8, 1872. As between
efendants and Cavaroc the sale is binding
hC hAAiUoetoh VI Vi VIC 0coOClotiou |
0 purchase and sell property is not easily
ecided. Its object was to make insur-
nces 1t could not 90 beyond this prior
, December 81, 1872. 1t could receive
roperty for reimbursement only. S Wend
DO; 3 Miss, 4l0. Anything more than su-
,orized by the charter ia illegal. Morse,
anking, 4; Metropolitan Bank vs. Godfrey,
; Ills, $40. The president acted beyond
is power in purchasing the property. There
as no provision for it in the charter. Plat
3. Naples, 10 A. SO. If the act was one the |
rectors might have authorized, the cor
oration might subsequently ratify it. The |
larter must be strictly construed. Charles
liver Bridge vs. Warren Bridge, IL Pet ,
%, 544: Richmond railroad VS.. Louisa rail
ad, l3 Howe, II; Bradley VS.. New York :
i'd New Hampshire railroad q Conn. 294.
he charter originally gave no right to
AXE lease. Counsel cay the possession t
defendant was the possession of inter .
NOR. McClosky vs. Central Bank, 10 A.
4. When the act was drawn up the inter '
nor was not legally capable OF making
oh q contract and could not purchase. q
The other arguments being founded on
at hypothesis are unsOund. The lessor I
nst have known plaintiffs contracted with
PENDANT for improvements. No dissent
shown. 1t can not set up want OF recOr- Il
ton as bar to plaintiffs privilege. 1t v
q not consent to furnishing materials for | =
own Refinery and performance Of q vast
lount Of scientific labor and say to plain Q
Is that it is q third party: Counsel say o