New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-11-17

Yfeeen, -Jusrces TaliaterrO, Howell,
WHY and Morgan. Absent-Cnief Justice
Ludellng.
The following opinions were read:
BY JUSTICE TALIAFERRo.
No ;1lt, state OF Louisiana vs. vallette
Dry Dock Company. appellant.-Fron su-
perier District Court. Tax suit, the state
taking deiaul. February %. The defend.
an, having excepted February !, and no
action taken. the case is gemanded anu
iudgmen. reversed.
NJ. ioi3 Thomas II. J. Richardson VI.
Levin 2. smith ct al, Robert j. Hunter,
app-llant.-EvOn Ninth Judicial! District.
On rehearing. judgment undisturbed.
No. IS,&. State VS.. Frank McGlOin, appel
ian,-F.om Superior District Court. Tax
suit. and Judgment by default. Defendant
claimed that Che fixing Of the rate by the
Auditor was Unconstitutional; that he had
no such power: that this tax was for an !l!e-
Gal purnose. The defense is without force.
The questions have been settled in other
cases. Judgment affirmed.
No. 5000. State vs. Christian Boze. ap-
ps.lapt.-From Superior District Court.
Tax suit. The amount. 1922 30. is not ap'
p.aiahle. Judgment affirmed.
No. 35--5. Meyers L. Winehili. appellants.
"a. Ger,nania Insurance Company From
sixth District Court. Parol testimony to
establish notice Of reinsurance was i'm
PROPERLY admitted. Defense testlies that
knowledge was not given till after the IRE
and was then by written notice in evidence.
| plaintiffs do not show the notice was gwen
within "a reasonable time. The testimony
! should nave been excluded. 23 A. 332: 3 Rob.
3SJ: Rob. 3J..: li Peters. $40. Judgment
affirmed. Judge Morgan dissenting, but
| concurs n the debree. Judge WHY also
| dissents.
No. ..:9. State ve. Peter Marcy, appel.
| lan,,-ryom Superior District Court. Tax
| suit. Tie defendant should have caused
| the reduction OF the valuation OF his prop
erry within the time. The levee tax has
been decided TO be equal anu UNIFORM.
Jud gmept affirmed.
No :ss,S.. George W. Cochran vs. Benja.
! min Il. Pegram, appellant.-From E.ghth
District Court. Claim OF $4,000; ne-halt
! OF the sun. alleged to have been paid IN
| liquidation Of partnership between plaintiff
I and defendant, who denies the partnership.
| The evidence establishes there was one.
! JudgMen: affirmed.
EY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. sj5..... Charles G. E. Baquie -.
Thoma. Friend. appellant.-From second
Judicial District. On prolnissorry notes Ex'
! cep.ions 70 costs sustained by reducing
| Judgment from S591 to $50: %.
No. :3.5s:. Mira. C. Desemaux rs. John Moy'
! !au. .appei!ant-From Sixth District Court.
The tax sale and proceedings set up again Il
! piai, ,;tt'> title are go irregular as to be o1
no etier.. Judgment affirmed.
! Nc. Al. State vs.. Francis Vallett. de-
! .endant.-Fyom Superior District Court.
Exceptions pending when default was
taken: ;ls proceedings wer. IRREGULAR
| Judgment annulled and case remanded.
No. +s3i f. koechlin rs. Louisa Flontke.
anueiIau..-From Fourth District Court
! Salt On three rromissory notes ot defendant
! vino ie separate il property from her hus'
! band, amounting to $4,000. secured by
I mort gage. De:ense-the money was for her
! husbands use. Defendant. on authorization
| o: second District Court, executed the mort
gage. Thi. is not conclusive. The lenders
| carried. the debt fer years on their books al
T; the husbands debt. He was largely in hei
debt. and the purchase OF residence by
he's with this money was restoration OF
! her paraphernai effects. Judgment re
! yerseG.
; No. soJ!. state vs. Christian Boyer. ap'
! :-iian:.-From Superior District Court
I; Appea! dismissed, there being no Judgment
! in TIE record. =,
30, 1890. State rs. Jamos Wood. appel
!ant-F:om Superior District Cours. lSe<
! No ;.jl.' Judgment affirmed.
No, 30. State Us. Eclipse TOwboa'
COMPANY. experimentation Superior Dis
! .ric. Court. The court must be presumed
| TO have had sufficient evidence to give
! Judgment. The s. 50 for the tax collector
is costs. ard not part OF the money due
the State. The twenty-five per cent is er
roneousiy assessed tor one year. Juos
| ment amended.
No, 1854. George Jacobshagen vs. John
sIoylan, aprellant.-From Seventh District
! Court. Plaintiffs land was sold by the
! con stable of the Eighth Justice Court fol
taxes due the city OF Jefferson. which sued
another party. The plaintiff has just
J title. and the constable's sale, plaintiff no,
being party TO the suit: made after the
return day has passed, did not dlvest It.
+! Ju6 gment affirmed.
No. 1896. Mary Woodslvs, J. V;osca ct al.
sppellants.-From Fourth District Court
! On promissory note. Judgment affirmed
! No. a75l. State VS.. A. d. Monasterio
! aprellant.-Frolr Superior District Court
! Tax suit. The constitutional objections
! were disposed of in State vs. Maginnis. 1t
(! A. The 50 .. claimed for the tax collector
/; The twenty five per cent damages is dated
! a year 700 early. Judgment amended and
! affirmed.
No. 49,. State IS. James Buckner. ap
|; pe!lant.-From Superior District Court
/! Same as No. i15i.
/; No. J.:7. S.ate Us. Widow J. c. De ST.
Rcmes. appellant.-From Superior District
| Court. Tax suit. Testimony to prove
/! erroneous assessment and valuation was
| properly excluded. The Board OF Assessors
! and tine Auditor are the only powers to
J make corrections: act No. IL OF 1871.
Judgment amended as in No. 4.oI and
| affirmed.
80. i.;.. State rs. John Ormond. ap
oe!iant.-From Superior District Court
(! Jud smen, amended by remitting the
| twenty-five pev cent as IN No. Eol.
( ltovn A. (yIranh
| experimentation Super:o. District Court
(! Same as No. i75l.
10. 1914. State vs. S. ". Edgar, appel
iant.-Frcn Superior District Court. Tax
| sut. Ii was error to allow penalty on
suit brought October. 1873. Judgment being
rendered December ,, because the penalty
! did not accrue till the fifteenth The court
! did not err in excluding testimony to prove
+: erroneous description. but II did err IN per
of the will. Judgment annulled and case
remsniei. .,
No. 1895. B. O. Mesritz ct al. vs. II. Mark'
ct al. appellants From Sixth District
Court. The defendant Scott was non
resident and was not cited. His rule to set
! aside the attachment did not subject him tt
! tie jurisdiction of the court on the merits
> \. $. 421; 10 A.. 33i. No attorney al noe
was appointed. Marks reconventlonal De
Mand not being passed upon was an lrregu.
, iarity. l. A.. !53. Judgment reversed anc
case remanded.
No 1875. State National Bank VS.. JacOt
Strauss From Sixth District Court. Or
promissory note acquired in due course OF
trade. The equitable defense shown agalns,
the maker is no defense against the plain
tIff. If the evidence excluded had beer
admitted, it would not be a good defense
Judgment affirmed. with ten per cent dam
ages.
EoyopIo Nv nd