New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-26


ed as to limit the argument OF counsel
| fifteen minutes, instead of one hour
IL is further ordered that all suits, o
prOmlssory notes or by executOry process:
be placed upon the summary docket, an
that hereafter twenty Of said suits shall b
fixed for trial on Tuesdays.
The following decisions were rendered:
REHEARINGs REFUSED.
No. 3O74. Zapata VS.. Cefres and Bougere.
| No. 300l. Roberts VS.. Huppenbauer.
| No. 1859. Lusse vs.. Patterson.
No. 306S. Mahood vs.. Tealsa.
| No. 4765. Master and Warden vs.. Foster
| No. 49SS. State vs. Ransom.
| No. 1878. BOe vs.. Filleul, executor.
| No. H79. Durac vs.. Dnckerts
No. 1869. Lirrette VS.. Shatfer.
No. 47S5. Givanovich vs.. Citizens Bank
No. 1858. Bonilla y Caballero VS.. Mad
| nel executor.
No. 1866. Foulhouse VS.. Gaines.
No. 4742 McCracken vs.. Wells.
No. 3O6l. COnery vs.. Cannon.
REHEARINGs GRANTED.
No. 1856. Higgins vs.. Haley.
No. 3OoS. Higgins VS.. Haley.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELNG.
No. 1886. Russell & Hall va. Ellen Keef
ct al, appellants From Sixth District
Court of Orleans Motion to dismiss ap
peal refused.
No. 5000. William G. James, appellant
VS.. John K. Breaux. sheritf.-FrOm Seventh
Judicial District. Plaintiff holding a mort.
gage, injOined the sheriff's sale, alleging the
proceedings were irregular. If the sale be
null, it can not affect plaintiffs rights. II
valid, his remedy is by third opposition to
claim the proceeds. Judgment affirmed.
No. 5l25. William l.. Cushing, appellant,
va Mr., r. VIZ
District Court. Judgment affirmed with
ten per cent damages for frivolous appeal.
No. 3034. w. 3. TAYLOR vs.. Blakemore.
Woodbridge & Co. From the Seventh
District Court of Orleans. Plaintiff claimed
ownership of and sequestrated twenty-five
bales of cotton defendants had in posses
sion consigned to them by various parties
and which they claimed to have purchased
in Mississippi. The plaintiff showed bill
of sale of December q, 1863 By the law
OF Mississippi, delivery is not essential;
l3 Smedes & Marshall, GIL; 40 Miss, 472
The attempt to sell to defendants on De-
cember 90 was null; G. G. 2452. Judgment
reversed
No. 5O29. Jules A. Blanc. syndic, VS.. j.
o. Scruggs.-From Ninth Judicial District.
Plea of prescription against a note. The
proceedings were interrupted by acknowl-
edgment The prescription of three years
uocS uOt Apply ~ du dCCOuHI sldttu DIS Ill
this suit 20 A. ll9; 10 A. l95; 4 La. 5i4; IA
La. "a; 3 Rob. 362;; - Rob. 544; 4 A. 1877.
Judgment amended to give plaintiff
$35Oi A.
No. 5l4S. Mrs. Bette Clemens vs.. Fran
els Augustus Comfort, appellant.-FrOm
Thirteenth Judicial District. In 1861 part
OF the parish of Madison was transferred to
the parish of Tensas. The decedent had
his domicile in Madison. An attempt was
made to open his succession in Tensas, and
the defendant claims a title so acquired.
The proceedings were null. G. c., 935; c.
p, 929; Succession OF Williamson, A.,
26l; Il A., 399. Judgment affirmed.
No. 307O. Samuel Snodgrass VS.. Thomas
0. Adams, ppellant.-FrOm Sixth District
Court of Orleans. Whether Mr.. Hatch was
collector of the port of New Orleans under
the United States or the Confederate States
is immsterial. The payment of the duties
should protect the property from seizure.
Thompson VS.. VS. Smith, Wal, 10; United
States VS.. Rice, Wheat, 250. Judgment
reversed.
BY JUSTICE TALIAFERRO.
No. 1885. Succession of Thomas Hail.
From Second District Court of Orleans.
The principal point in this case was the
question whether wife. having received
manual gifts during the marriage and after
ward returning them to enable the hus
band to pay his debts, he promising to make
4 provision in return, but dying before
1oing so, could claim them as donations.
The Court decide otherwise. Donations
made during marriage may be revoked at
any time while the marriage exists. The |
Judgment of the lower court, as amended |
Il many items, is affirmed.
No. 5l6l. State eX rel. Mary Il. Cald- !
we'll VS.. judge of the Fourth District Court |
If Orleans.-Applcation for mandamus to |
compel the granting of an appeal from Or
lers of the judge, dismissing the opposition |
o the hOmOlOgatiOn of the report, experts |
declaring certain property could not be |
livided and discharglng rule to rescind
# the orders will work lrreparable injury |
nd presents case emitting her to an ap-
zeal. Rule made absolute.
No. 5l37. C. E. Girardey & Co. VS.. city of
Sew Orleans, appellant.-FrOm Superior
District Court. The defense excepted to
laintiff-s claim of $1,000 for rent, that it
ad spent $275 in repairs on the roof.
Judgment for the whole sum affirmed.
No. 1926. Succession of William II.
'ooley; P. Mallard, appellant From the
econd District Court of Orleans. The
Of the court below, that under
263 c. c.. the privilege of vendor of
lON dUlCb Slll III LILO DU5ScsSlOu VI LILO NCh- |
ee is inferior to that of the lessor, is cor
ect. The homestead privilege was given
ne highest rank, except that of the vendor
immOvables. He having two privileges,
ne on immovables and one on movables,
le exception can not apply to both. Sue
ession OF Bovet, 25 A. Judgment affirmed.
No. 5000. Mary Hardie, appellant, VS..
ohm A. Stevenson.-FrOm Fifth Judicial
lis .rict. Plaintiff, the mother of defend
nt's illegitimate child, sues for decree to
lat effect, and $500 alimony from May 30
s69 Defendant pleads res judicata, and
lat the child is an adulterOus bastard, be
eing married at the time. Plaintiff had
led for the same cause and damages for
ss of character in the Fourth District
ourt of Orleans, which suit was dismissed
ter the jury was empaneled, at request of
aintitf, February %, 1872, but no entry
as made on the minutes till May Il, when
was ordered by the court, on motion OF
efendant. The court had this power.
alignment affirmed.
No. 3O42. E. T. Parker VS.. A. and \.
ernard, appellants.-From Sixth District
ourt of Orleans. Plaintiff as sheriff and
'ndic sold Greher certain property for
Ish and notes. The latter not being paid
aintif seized and sold the property to A.
ernard for cash and bond Of $3.50 81,
W sued on, conditioned to pay when .
cit mortgage in favor of minor child of
70 former owner was cancelled. II was |