New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-02-10
Terms Of Subscriptions
Il. K 81. Sn
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY. FEBRUARY 10. 1874.

Present. Chief Justice Ludelins and Jus
tices Taliaferro, Howell and Morgan.
The following decisions were rendered.:
REHEARING REFUSED.
No, NIB Succession of Monette.
REHEARINGS GRANTED.
No. BOIL. A. z. Field ct al. VS.. John l..
Williams ct al
No. 3O77 POstern Bayou Navigation Com.
pany VS.. William Durbridge.
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUDEL1NG.
No. 1882. Succession of Caleb Whiting.
ton.-Thomas Duffy, appellant. From the
Second District Court of Orleans. Dece-
dent left nuncupative Will drawn by no.
tary who wrote, "the said testatOr being
illiterate, signs his mark" The objection
that this does not conform to Civil Code,
section 1879, is fatal. Stafford VS.. Stafford.
IL La, 447; Shannon VS.. Shannon, exor.. 10
A., 9; Brand VS.. Baumgarden, y A, 63!S:
Mercade %. Judgment affirmed.
No 1865 G. b. Caballero ct ais. vs..
Charles Maduel, testamentary executor, APP.
pellant.-From the Second District Court of
Orleans. Plaintiffs are cOnsine OF decedent,
Maria Caballero, and residents of Spain. The
will was set aside in lower court and dece-
dents daughter Maria decreed legitimate
and sole heir. This suit was instituted to set
aside that judgment and was decided
against Mrs. Cont, who appealed. Defen
dant offered in proof the judgment in favor
of Maria, which was received. This was
correct. Ennis VS. Smith. IA Howard, 49,
The status of Maria MRS. Conti is not
involved in this case. The decision in her
favor is res judicata. Judgment reversed.
No. 1866 CorDelia Hart ct al. VS.. Hoss
e. EIder.-Rehearing |. The effect of the
civil rights bill was to strike with nullity
all State laws discriminating on account of
race or color. 1t gave plaintiff the right to
enter into contract of marriage with white
man and legitimate her children born pre-
vious to it. She has the same right to make
a contract as white woman and III arriage
IS a civil contract. G. &. 81.
,. The Code Of 1925 declares children born
out of wedlocl. may be legitimated by mar
yiage of their father and mother. A formal
act is not necessary. That Code, article
22l requires an act before notary to &C.
knowledge an Legitimate child, and uses
these words: mo other proof of acknOwl
edgement shall be admitted in favor Of |
children of color" This did not apply to |
white children, then. Article 227 declares |
the mode of proof as to them. The Code of |
1903 made no distinction. The Code of1S70 |
requires an act before notary, but can not |
affect children whose status was fixed in
1867. c. G. 944.
In 6 A. 157, Dupre VS.. Caruthers, it was
held that article 22l was not prohibtory as
30 white children, and quotes Lange VS..
Richoux, 6 La, 57O see also Jones VS.. Hun.
ter, Rob. 236.
3. 1t is in evidence that the parents
acknowlet' ged the children before marriage.
They lived together from 1864 to 1869, when
the father, who treated them as his chill
dren, died.
Former decree adhered to.
Justice Morgan. Justice WHY with him.
dissented.
BY JUSTICE rAlfAFERRo.
No. 1899. State ex rel. T. Taylor. VS..
Judge Of Superior District Court.-The
court can only mandamus district judge }
for the purpose of enforcing and maintaining I
ts appellate jurisdiction. Mandamus re-
used.
No. 1888. State VS.. Louis Ransom, appel.
ant.-Fr0m the Fourth Judicial District, |
suit against former sheriff and securities, | r
md judgment OF $500. Exception over.
uled.
No. 1892. Dulop & McCance vs. Henry u. t
iinor. Edward &. Palmer. third opponent, d
ppellant-From Fourth Judicial District
'almer complains the sheriff refused to de- c
yer deed ofproperty purchased, because the c
axes of 1866 and 1868 were unpaid. The | n
curt below decided the tax of 1866 was G.
Act No. 30 of 1860 declares that II
axes are lien from the first Monday of \
uly of the year they are assessed for two I,
ears. The revenue act of 1868 extended | l.,
he time to five years. 1t was competent N
" the Legislature to lengthen the time OF n
description. A portion of the time of pre- O,
'ription has passed under one term and the Pi
her portion under another Under the 81
lie the hen for 1867 is prescribed, and that 81
1868 not SO. Judgment amended accord. vi
gly. Va
No. 1869 Alexander Lirette. appellant, Al
!. William A. Shatfer-From Fifteenth W. n,
ldcial District. Plaintiff sues for 5000 NJ,
tmages by defendant restraining him by Ba
junction from running his saw MILL and Ne
Y prohibiting him from floating and getting NN
wv logs from the swamp lands of the inte-
or That 1t continued twelve months, !
hen the defendant abandoned the suit. S
alleges the injunc ton was neces- Ca
~. as plaintiff prevented his navigating ClI
e Bayou Cane. verdict was given for | D Dn
PENDANT Plaintiffs saw mill is in Bayou | Ke,
IRE bonnie, near Bayou Cane, and defend Les
Is plantation on Bayou Black. There is Lso'
between Bayous Black and Nae Ne
rrebonne on which plaintiff has float Nev
I'D for transmitting his timber. In De- PIT
nber, 1870, defendant commenced to move Shr
products through this bayou. Plaintiff Vic
de no objection. Offered to remove the =
~, but could not agree on the price
When defendants first load passed plain. bel
notified him he would prevent another
IN passing. Defendant therefore OBJ Y
ned the Injunction. He contends the
sage is a public highway. The testi- sun
nv is adverse to the plaintiff 1t is pir'
lrly shown that the route over which de- due
iant brought his crop in 1870 has been or 8
d for forty years. No objection TO pub ,h;s
use has ever been set up. The effort to '..s
W that Bayou Cane is a mere float road 245
against the decided evidence that it is tioI
ontinuous channel. The injunction did tha
-, Saa, mn I ,tt - afi;r med maj
BY Justice HOWELL. abo
0. 1888. In re commissioner of the first qua