New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-08-14

after defendant moved to Withdraw DIS an
swer, declaring that attorney disregarded
| instructions, and that the answer was made
without his knowledge, which motion was
supported by the attorneys affidavit to the
same effect. Held, that the defendant was
bound by his attorneys pleadings.
| City Of Shreveport We. FlOurn0y, sheriff.
| ct al.-The question of the suf1iciency of
| evidence to authorize the granting of an
executive process can not be inquired into
| BY this court on an injunction restraining
| the executive process. Property can not
| be retained and the price refused. The ap-
| peal was frivolous, but as no damages are
asked for none can be granted. Judgment
| affirmed.
Hendricks, ST.. VS.. Kendall; Graham &
Anderson, and Hendricks, Jr., third oppO-
nents-A note may be taken and suit
| thereon instituted in the name Of an agent
| for the benefit of principal. The evidence
| is in favor Of Hendricks, Jr., as the owner
| of the note upon which eXecutory process
| issued.
NJ. E. Daniel, tutor, VS.. j. A. Ivy ct al
| The heirs of a deceased wife must show a
residuary interest in her succession, in land
sold by the father after death, before suing
| for the undivided half of the land thus sold.
| Suit dismissed.
| F. Bercher We. city of Shreveport.--De-
| fendant, without complying with the law,
! included a strip of ground occupied by
plaintiff and others for over twenty years,
| in widening and grading street. Judg-
ment for $4,000.
| Irrelevant, tutor, VS.. j. D. Holly.-Judg
ment affirmed. Appeals are taken when
the judgment is signed, not when 1t is rem
| dered.
| S.B. Miller We. NJ. C. Mosely.-The holder
| Of check can not hold the endorser re-
sponsible when it is shown, even though the
payee failed, that the check was held be-
| yond reasonable length Of time. Judg-
| ment affirmed.
j. H. Brigham, curator, VS.. Bussey, re-
| corder, ct al.-This was a suit to hold the
recorder and his sureties responsible tor
failure to reinscribe judgment. The de-
| Tense was lack of Instructions. Held, SHAT
| evidence showed instructions were given
Judgment affirmed.
| NJ ellis vs. j. D. Dansby.-Where
party attacks sale or judgment, for fraud
or stimulation, and does not allege injury,
| his suit will not stand. Case dismissed.
| Dugan ct al. We. Police Jury of St.
| Charles.-Paintiffs fail to state the
amount Of their interest as taxpayers, and
| hence the motion to dismiss is sustained.
| The simple allegation that plaintiffs will be
damaged to the amount Of $500 by the acts
| complained of. is insufficient.
| Peet, Yale & Bowling VS.. Riley Il Co. ct
al.-The note sued on was given by MEM
Der Of the firm after the death of one OF its
members. Vickers, another member, as
| sumed payment of the note. he having
purchased the interest of his surviving
| partner. Held, that Vickers is liable.
| Judgment reversed.
Mary Markham vs.. j. j. Schsrdt.-An ap-
! plicant for tutorship need not allege that
| there are no relatives OF the minor in the
| State.
| Objection to the want Of unanimity IN the
proceedings Of family meeting must be
| made before hOmOlogation. The minors
| owned no property, and the family meeting
| recommended no bond be taken No bond
| is required. Plaintiffs demand dismissed.
DuckwOrth ct al. VS.. Payne ct al. Sheritf's
notices of sale are null when posted only
| when an official journal has been selected
| and the sheriff notified Of the fact. Land
| sold under a mortgage created before the
| constitution of 1868 need not be divided
| into lots of ten and fifty acres. Judgment
| for defendant.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
Hoss g. Elder, administrators, VS.. 6. j.
! Jones-The defendant having agreed to
| Judgment rendered and signed in chambers
| is bound by it. An administrator, without
being authorized, can not novate debt
due a succession under his charge; nor can
lie, under any circumstances, take draft
in payment of rent, payable at the end of
the lease, and thus give up the privilege on
the growing crops. Privilege enforced and
judgment affirmed in three cases.
r. c. & NJ. Oglesby VS.. Renwick & Co
Morgan, one of the defendants, had right
to prove that the note sued on was given
for an account which was incorrect. Judg-
ment reversed at plaintiffs cost.
Taylor. Knapp & Co. VS.. w. J. Hancock.
Where party allows Judgment to 90
against him by default, we Will assume
that it was rendered on sufficient evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Succession of j. H. Wisner.-"There is no
more difficult question OF fact to determine
than that of forgery" The district judge is
acquainted with the parties in interest;
heard the witnesses testify, and saw the
documents. His opinion, therefore, must
have great weight; while an examination
of the signatures satisfies the court that the
District Judge did not err in admitting the
signatures alleged to be forgeries, as gen.
uine. Judgment affirmed
City of Shreveport VS.. l.. A: Levy This
was case where the defendant appealed
upon fine of $40 iu the city court for hav.
ing kept his store open on Sunday. Defend
ant is Jew and observes Saturday as his
Sabbath, The city ordinance provides that
whoever observes Saturday as mis- Sabbath
shall not be required to close his store on
Sunday. Before the constitution" say the
court, Jews and Gentiles are equal; by the
law they must be treated alike, and the
ordinance of city council which gives to
one sect privilege which It denies to an
other violates both the constitution and the
law, and is, therefore, null and void" Judg-
ment in favor Of defendant.
Louisa Bracey and husband vs.. Ray, tax
collector of Monroe.-Plaintitfs' property |
was seized for taxes. Prior to the sale the |
tax was paid, but the penalty eDjOined. |
Held. that penalty and tax were equally |
exigible. Injunction dissolved, with costs. |
Steamer Stella Block VS.. Parish of Rich |
land.-The fact that plaintiff peddled his |
goods on steamboat did not exempt him |
from the payment Of license, and the as |
sessing of such license is no Infringement |
of the federal constitution respecting the |
regulation of commerce between the States. |
Judgment affirmed.
Sarah Richardson VS.. Dinkgrave, sheriff, |
ct al.-The plaintiff in injunction has the |
right to open and close the argument. !
Where mortgage creditor furnishes sup |
plies as factor it is false doctrine to contend |
that the proceeds of the crop, entrusted to |
him by the planter, must be imputed first |
to the mortgage, the residue to go to the |
payment Of supplies. Judgment dissolving !
plaintiffs Injunction sustained, the evidence |!
not supporting her plea.
j. +. Pargoud VS.. Mrs. S. Richardson.-It !
is first objected that the note sued on lie lot |
stamped. This was not necessary, as the |
act accompanying the note was stamped. |
It is next objected that the note was not |
presented at the place Of payment, at its |
maturity, according to tho agreement of the |
parties. This agreement is not a stipulation |
in the act of sale and mortgage, but was |
added m the Onfe snmefima after ita data |