New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-31

were granted and 1876 refused. Besid
these there are many applications yet t
be heard. Not included in the above lis
there are six dissenting opinions by tn
Chief Justice, one by Justice Taliaterro
eight by Justice Howell, fifteen by Justic
WHY, and nine by Justice Morgan.
The majority Of these cases possess lit
tie interest to legal readers. and ar
hardly of importance to any except tn
parties to them. They are merely re
capitulations of evidence taken before {
Judge or jury of an inferior court, and es
tablish nothing but the strength of the
| proof of one set Of facts or another as
they affect the status of the litigants. Blu
the labor they have required from the
Indeed, it may be considered much more
irksome to delve through the voluminous
testimony of the majority of these records
| to arrive at a conclusion of fact than i,
would be to apply conclusion of law. nc
matter how intricate, to an acknowl-
edged condition of things, determined,
as it should be, by the numerous
courts below, whose proceedings and
judgments flow into the reservoir OF
this overworked tribunal. No Supreme
Court of any other State is compelled to
perform such labor, and some means
should be devised which, while securing
to all citizens the opportunity Of the
opinion of the highest court of record,
yet would prevent the pages of the re-
ports from being incumbered with de-
cisions which, after an elaborate analy-
sis Of accounts, only determine whether
a column of figures has been footed cor
rectly.
But interspersed among these valuelsss
records are opinions of Importance, not
only to the profession, as establishing the
law in practice, but of great interest to all
intelligent citizens. 1t is impossible to
give the names of all, but the majority of
the following partial list have as much
significance as any rendered at previous
term:
Observation-Disclosures VS.. parish Judge;
SUGGESTIONS of Randall and Vim.
Appeal-Darcy vs.. judge of the Fourth
District Court.
Batture rights-New Orleans, Mobile and
Chattanooga railroad vs.. city Of New Or
leans
Civil rights-Hart VS.. Hoss; Decuir VS..
Benson.
Confederate money-Denny vs.. johnson;
Holt VS.. New Orleans.
Observation-Disclosures of New Orleans
VS.. Foster; Adams vs.. Webster.
Contra bonos mores-Mahood VS.. Tealsa.
COntract-O'Hara VS.. GOuldy; Packard
VS.. Atwater; Campbell VS.. Miltenberger;
Bosworth VS.. New Orleans; Hunter vs. Sun
Insurance Company.
Corporations-Bank of Macon VS.. Simms
State vs.. Accommodation Bank.
COverture-Moore VS.. Gordon.
Damages-Richardson vs.. Zuntz-
Donations-SuccessiOn of Hall
Due process of law''-McMillen VS.. An
dersOn.
Homestead-Calvit VS.. Hoy; succession
Of Cooley.
Insurance-Dirmain VS.. Home Insurance
Company; Leigh VS.. Knickerbocker In
surance Company; Phillips VS.. Louisiana
Equitable Insurance Company tsuicide).
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. vs. New Orleans;
Fulhouze VS.. Gaines; Gardiner VS.. Judge
of Fifth District Court; Smith VS.. Dur
bridge; TessOu VS.. GrOssman; Semmes VS..
judge of Superior District Court.
Jury-State VS.. Smith.
Libel-Cass VS.. New Orleans Times.
Mandamus Accommodation Bank VS..
judge OF the Superior District Court; Ben
ton VS. same: TAYLOR vs. same
Manumission-Johnson vs.. johnson.
Mortgage-Pountz VS.. Reggie.
NOvatiOn-McCan vs. Falkeson.
Otfice-Collins VS.. Clinton; Claiborne VS..
Paiiange; Monroe VS.. Meunier; Woodruff
VS.. Lobdell; Cramer VS.. Brown.
Party wall-Lavergne VS.. Lacoste.
Police powerfully Of New Orleans VS..
Stafford
Practice-Hub5ard vs.. Moore; Lacroix
VS.. judge of the Fifth District Court; State
vs.. Pintado; same VS.. Russell; same VS.. Glib
son; Hardie VS.. Stevenson.
Public officer-Merle vs.. Duhuclet.
Public thing-Morgan vs.. Lombard.
Res judicata-Brady VS.. Ascension par.
ish.
Tax-New Orleans vs.. Salamander In
surance Company; Howell VS.. McNea; same
vs., Guth; New Orleans vs.. Klein; State VS..
Tender-State vs. Clinton, New Orleans,
Mobile and Texas railroad, intervendr.
Vendor and vendee-Lusse VS.. Patterson
Will-SuccessiOn of Elliott; Rogers VS..
kissinger.
The foregoing list of cases comprises
ID out sixty of the most important to the
general public. Ranging through almost
Every branch of the law, they will be
quoted thousand times before the Su-
,reme Court resumes its labors in this |
'ity. Reading the names of them is alone |
to suggest the idea that there is
york enough in them to occupy the whole
erm, and yet they are only one-twelfth of |