New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-02-03


that the tax OF 1866 was unpaid BY plaintiff
and the property subject to special lien
that they offered to pay the amount of til,
note, less the tax. The plaintiffs vendo
paid the tax two days before the suit wa
filed. Judgment affirmed.
No. 3074. Charles Zapata vs. Honorine
Cifreo and Eliza Bongere, appellants
From the Seventh District Court of Or
leans. May sixteenth, 1857, b. Gingnor
executed his negotiable note for $4,000, pay
| able at two years from date, and secured
| by real property in New Orleans. Plain
| tilt became the owner of the note. Cling
| non married the mother of defendants, and
assigned the lots to them they obligatine
| themselves to discharge the note.
Defense by Ciireo, that her codefendant
| agreed to pay the note, together with all
| claims on the succession OF their mother.
Bougere denies plaintiffs title to the note
| pleads prescription; that her obligations
were TO the original owner of the note; that
| plaintiff is merely an agent, and does moi
disclose his principal.
| These pleas can no. avail the defendants
| Story On Bills, sec. 1873: Banks vs. Eaton,
y. s, 29l There is no equitable ground in
| the defense. There was mDlete recog-
| milton of the claim February 8. 1869 and
ruary ls 1870. The plea Of prescription is
unavailable. Judgment affirmed.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No 2979. Mrs. Ann Madden vs. Eneas
| Pendarvis ct al. - From Sixth District
Court of Orleans. Defendant obtained
| Judgment of separation from bed and
| board III 1868, ordering liquidation Of the
| community, the wife receiving the custody
OF the child. Plaintiff sued for SIS per
month for the support of the child, ard
prayed that piece Of property, bought
l 4 r
defendant, be adjudged portion of the
community. Judgment was rendered ac-
cordingly, and the defendant, in appealing,
asks that an inheritance of $3.50, received
during marriage, be charged on the prop
erty. 1t appears that he used about $500
of his separate funds in paying for it.
Judgment amended accordingly.
No. 3O6l. Edward Conery vs.. John w.
Cannon ct al, appellants.-From Fifth DIS,
trict Court of Orleans. March, 1868, the
United States District Court gave Judgment
for So, against the Magenta and T. =.
Leathers as principal, and L. Conery, j.
II. Carter and j. w. Reeves, as snreties Oh
a release bond. Leatners desiring to ap-
peal, the defendants in this suit gave Con-
cry bond to hold him harmless in the re-
lease bond, and this suit ia brought on il.
The defense contends that it was without
cOnsideration-5 r., GO; ii A, l.3: How,
2i0; which hold that it is unnecessary for
an appellant to sign an appeal bond when
there is sufficient surety. But this was 70
protect Conery on the release bond. The
defense also say that Conery has not vet
been compelled to pay anything. Tie
amended answer shows that he has paid the
final Judgment The judgment Of the lower
court is affirmed.
No. 3l00. Samuel Friedander vs. Isaac
{. Levy, appellant.-From Sixth District
Court of Orleans. Suit for three months
rent on a lease and three unsigned notes,
the signatures being omitted, as alleged,
by accident. Detense-Repairs made for
several years, and consent Of plaintiff to re-
nit three months rent On that account.
The testimony is conflicting, but the de.
PENDANT has failed to make out his defense.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 4779. ID. Durac, appellant, VS.. Eliza
beth Duckerts, l.. Goilerd, third opposition.
From Fourth District Court of Orleans. f.
J. Robert sold ID. Durac and widow of j. Il.
Ferrari lot Of land, for part cash and
two mortgage notes Of the vendees in
solido. Durac paid the first. and sued the
widow for half. Pending this, the second
note became due, and Robert seized the
property. The sheriff was ordered to sell
each portion separately. L. Goilard loaned
Mrs. Ferrari the amount due by her, $3.50,
and paid the sheriff two sdays before the
sale. Durac paid bis portion the next day.
Tho sheriff paid Robert S2252 GS in full
Mrs. Ferrari's portion was sold by the
sheriff under the process Of Durac, Goiard
filing third opposition. Durac denies the
debt OF Golard, claiming preference to
the amount of one-half the note first paid
by bin. Goilard relies on Hay VS.. Scott y.
A.. 4l6. which is not the same as the case
here. Durac's claim existed before Goilard |
acquired any rights. Gvilard claims to be |
-ubrogated to the mortgage rights OF Robert |
Inder G. c. 2l6D. His receipt Is not in the |
form presented. Judgment reversed. OPP.
position dismissed. and Judgment for plain.
IFS Transferred. J
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. 1875 State eX rel. s. ID. Dixon va.
Judge Of the Fifth District Court of Or.
eans.-Petition for mandamus. Judgment
vas rendered June %. and signed July 10.
ielator asked the judge, on the opening of
he November term, to sign it again, which
10 refused to do. The Judgment having
fernandez VS.. James, % A., 1873, ard no
ppeal could be taken. The Judgment
aust be regularly signed. Rule made alb.
clute.
No 1851. State ex-rel. James Gardiner VS..
udge of the Fifth District Court of Or
'ans.-Application for mandamus. The
roperty in question not being worth 5000
us COURT mas no jurisdiction ana Lne rule | I
dismissed.
No. 1855. La Soc'ete de Benf iisance, ap-
nilant. VS.. William Il. Morris ct als-From
18th District Court of Orleans. This case ,
eng improperly placed on the summary ,
'cket (Revised Statutes, 1915, and Statutes .
~, l2), is returned to the ordinary :
,cket.
No. 1921. VIM. X. Mills VS.. r. r. Barron, !
'pellant.-From Fifteenth judicial Dis
lct. Suit on on two promissory notes for 6
100 and $3.50. Defendant was cited No =
mber 9, 1871; prescription would have Z
en- accomplished May l6, 1872. He has '
ed neither argument nor evidence to sup q
rt his appeal. Judgment affirmed. with f
. per cent costs for frivolous appeal a
No. 30SO. James Powers va b. j. West. 9
Fifth District Court of !;
leans. Suit for $40 &c balance due for
rage. The only question, whether the 6
ice was agreed on, Is settled by the pay
mt of $40 per month by the defendant. T
dgment affirmed.
No. 4765. Master and Wardens Of New
leans Vs. Robert w. Foster, appellant
ON Superior District Court Suit under
ton two, act GS of 1869, to restrain defend
from making surveys Of seagong yes
$ or goods from them. Defendant ad-
is that he has made such surveys, denies =
It law can compel n citizen to employ
intitis, and atfirms the unconstitutional
of the act eli ed. The case between the Il
no parties (23 A., 750), is in defendants
or, but since then the above act has been
'sed. The appellant relies on Steam al
p Company VS.. Port Wardens, 6 of
H.. 81. That ease was under an act W