The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1874-08-07


not be inquired into by this Court on
an injunction restraining the executive
process. Property cannot be retained
and the price refused. The appeal was
but as no damages are asked
for, none can be granted. Judgment
affirmed.
Morrison va. I.arlsin, tax collector.
The decision in this case sustains the
tration by an order ea za7ge. Plaintiff:s'
action dismissed.
Hendricks, ST., vs. Kendall; Graham
& Anderson, and Hendricks, .Jr., 3rtl
opponents. A note may be taken, and
suit thereon Instituted in the name of
an agent for the benefit of q principal.
The evidence is in favor of Hendricks,
Jr., as the owner of the note upon
which executory process issued.
j. n. Coleman VS.. j. j. Hope. Judg-
ment affirmed.
NJ. Il. Daniel, tutor, VS.. j. A. Ivy ct
nj. The heirs Of n deceased wife must
show a rcsiduary interest in her success
sion, in land sold by the father after
death, before suing for the undivided
half of the land thus sold. Suit dis
missed.
+. Bercher VS.. City of Shreveport.
Defendant, without complying with
the law, included strip Of ground oc-
cupied by plaintiff and others for
over twenty years, in widening and
grading street. Defendant adjudged
to be liable for the ground and for
damages, in the sum of $500.
G. G. Edy, ct ais, VS.. City of Shreve-
port. Five eases consolidated. Judg-
ment affirmed, in favor Of plaintiffs and
enforcing rendor's privilege.
Trezevant, tutor, VS.. J. D. Holly.
Judgment affirmed. Appeals are taken
when the Judgment is signed, not when
it is wondered.
S. B. Miller VS.. NJ. G.. N[osely. The
holder of a check cannot hold the en-
tlorser responsible when it is shown,
even though the payee failed, that the
check was held beyond a reasonable
length of time. Judgment affirmed.
J. H. Brigham, curator, VS.. Bussey,
recorder, ct al. This was a suit to hold
the recordera and his sureties responsible
for failure to re-iuscribe a judgment.
The defense was lack Of instructions.
Held, that evidence showed lnstruc-
tions were given. Judgment affirmed.
NJ. GiIlis vs.. j. u. Dansby. Where a
party attacks I, sale or Judgment, for
fraud or stimulation, and does not allege
injury, his suit will not stand. Case
dismissed.
Parish of st. Charles vs.. Sarpy.
"Upon the record as presented to US we
cannot disturb the judgnert:', The
evidence is Insufficient.
Dusan ct al. vs. Police Jury Of st.
! Charles ct al. This was an action Ia
enjoin the acceptance Of certain parish
warrants by the parish officers, because
of the cXtravagant administration OF
the finances Of the parish. Plaintiffs
fail to state the amount OF their interest
as tax payers, and hence the motion to
dismiss is sustained. The simple allie
CATION that plaintiffs will be damaged
to tho amount of $500 by tho acts COM
planned Of, * insufficient.
Poet, Yale & Bowling VS.. Riley &
Co., ct al. Tho note sued on was given
by Il member OF the firm after the death
of one of it's members. Vickers, an
other member, assumed payment Of the
note, he having purchased the interest
Of his surviving partner. Held, that
Nickers is liable. Judgment reversed.
Mary Markham VS.. J. j. Schardt.
An applicant for tutorsnip need not
allese that there are no relatives of the
minor in the State.
Objection to the want of unanimity
in the proceedings OF a 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.
Plaintiff $ demand dismissed.
Duckworth ct III. VS.. Payne ct nj.
Sheritf's notices of sale are null when
posted, only when an official journal
| has been selected and tho Shor;H noti