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

Greher February, 1861, with judgmer
over against Bernard, which was reversed
10 A, 10y. In this suit judgment was rel
dered against defendants April %. 1871
and was correct, as Parker, the mortgaget
paid Greher, and if the minor ever had
mortgage it was lost By failure to RECORD
Judgment affirmed.
No. 5O6l. O. X. HawIey vs. j. NJ. Wen:
appellant.-From Ninth Judicial Distric,
The debts OF community are the debts o
the husband during its existence, and tn
property Is liable for their payment. 13
396; A. 226; 3 A. 6l5. On its dissolution
ne is bound for their payment. He has it
property under his control, and the sam
rights in settlement and liquidation as b.
had as husband. "a A. 534, 543 25 A. 379
3l4. judgment creditor of survivin.
spouse may seize and sell an asset of tn
community. % A: 429. Judgment affirmed
after damages of $l5O against plaintiff fo
wrongful suing out of an injunction.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 1862. Julius Socha vs. Mrs Louiss
RenandO.-From Fifth District Court O
Orleans. Motion to dismiss appeal on the
ground that the motion of appeal was made
| when the court was ad iOurned, viz: De
cember "A, 1873, to January 2, 1874, dis
missed.
No. 1890. Aimee Jumonville VS.. A. Jack
son Sharp, appellant.-From the Fourth
Judicial District. Plaintiff seeks to enforce
a judgment against her husband against
| property in the possession of defendant
claiming legal mortgage. Her judgment
is valid. The appearance of her husband
| gave her authority. The order of the court
is according to C. P. los and Leblanc VS..
Dubroca, s A. $50. But the Judgment has
| given the plaintiff more interest than she is
| entitled to or claimed. Judgment amended;
defendant to pay $1,000 Co.
No. 5O43. A. l.. Gresham ct al, appel.
lants, vs. Mrs. Zulme Hearsey-From Fifth
| Judicial District. Suit to enforce verbal
| partition Of succession property by inter.
| rOgatOries. Such partition is no more sol
| emn than transfer of real estate. The
answers to the interrOgatories could not be
disproved by parol evidence. c. c., 2275,
2276: L., llS; 10 r., 1885, A., l03; 10 A.,
1872; II A., ia. The plaintiffs have not,
however, the alleged partition. Judgment
affirmed.
No. 5O79. Harriet B. Kellogg, appellant,
vs. j. V. Durable, sheriif-From Fifth Ju-
dicial District. Judgment amended by re-
servin g plaintiffs claim to future action.
No. SIG. Joseph Billgery vs.. Jacob
Schnell ct a., appellants.-From Fifth Dis
trict Court of Orleans. Motion to dismiss
appeal refused.
No. 5lo4. Mrs. E. NJ. May, ct al. VS.. Og-
uCh ~ CtduoUIOuSH IOu LII
teenth Judicial District Judgment af-
frmed.
BY JUSTICE WYLY.
No. 5O30. Police jury, Parish of Natchi-
tGches VS.. ID. II. BOult, tax collector appel
lant.-FrOm Ninth Judicial District Suit
for balance due. Settlements for 1871 and
1872 having been made in warrants, not
obtained from taxpayers, but purchased.
Judgment on the verdict of $4,000. The
predecessors of defendant were authorized
to settle with him for collections made
lS67-lS12. His receipts show he fully
settled for his collections in these wears.
His not taking the oath that he had not
speculated in parish funds was a derelictiOn
Of duty of the parish authorities. The set
tlement was final. On defendants own
collections he owes balance which he ten
dered in warrants and the treasurer pro-
perly refused. Judgment reduced to
$3.50 IL, and affirmed.
No. 4729. Nathan c. Bailey, appellant, VS..
Mrs. Sarah Quick.-FrOm Fourth District
Court OF Orleans. Motion to dismiss appeal
denied.
No. 1916. James Gardiner VS.. S. Dezulter;
John Daily. third opponent-From Fifth
District Court of Orleans. Motion to trans
fer to ordinary docket denied, as it is an
injunction case. Act No. 73 of 1870. Ac-
cOrding to the snrety's testimony he is not
solvent, and therefore the court did not err
in dissolving the injunction. Judgment
amended, giving 500 attorneys fee.
No. 1862. Delop & Co. VS.. Windsor &
Randolph, S. II. Kennedy & Co., interven-
ors and appellants.-From Fifth District |
Court of Orleans. Plaintiffs attached de-
PENDANTS cotton on the Grey Eagle for |
S4Sll ~. Intervenors claimed $500 and |
privilege for supplies and cash advanced. |
The cotton was shipped to intervenors and |
seized before the bill Of lading was deliv- |
cred. The in tervenOrs have not, therefore, |
acquired right superior to plaintiffs. u |
A. go; 3 r., 106, 276; A, 444; % A., SCI; |
e. G. 324. They had 20 lien in Mississippi, |
where the cotton was raised, because no |
contract was recorded. Judgment atnrmed. |
No. 5l30. Emily j. Green VS.. Mr.. John |
Rhodes and William II. Begg, appellant. |
From Fifth District Court. The appel |
ant having made seasonable application |
Tor certiorari to correct the transcript, the |
motion to dismiss is denied.
No. 4709. Henry Verdelet va. Francis Gal
agher, appellant From Sixth District
Court of Orleans. No argument or brief |
presented. Judgment affirmed.
No. 47s4. State VS.. Accommodation Bank.
.ppelant.-From Superior District Court
Act No II changed the defendant corpora
ion from an association to loan money on
Movable pledges to one authorized to do
General banking business, should have been |
accepted by the unanimous vote of the
tockholders and not by mere majority,
t being a fundamental alteration. Wool
ork VS.. Union Bank, 3 Cald., 5S9; II Ga,
80; Met, 3l4. Judgment affirmed.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. $3.50. Edward j. Gay VS.. Wilson L.
1arimore, appellant.-From Fifth Judicial
district. Suit on premissory note, the
license being that the quantity of lands
eceived for which it was given was not the |
mount purchased. The court did not err
n admitting the deeds of the sheriff and
>tizens' Bank in evidence. 1t was not a
ale OF so many acres at so much an acre, |
ut OF certain plantation. described in
eeds, at a certain price tor the whole. |
ray purchased by boundaries and sold BY
oundaries. Judgment affirmed, Justice
lowell dissenting. The record satisfies
le the parties contracted with reference to
ne quantity of land.
lerritt ct al, appelants.-Fr0m Sixth Ju-
icial District Judgment affirmed, with
IN per cent damage, for frivolous appeal.
3O6. Charles E. Alter vs.. John McDou-
all, ct al, appellants.-From Fifth District
ourt. Defendant objected to the intro
uctlon OF document interrupting pre- {
,ription that it had no revenue stamp
he written acknowledgment of a debt
eed not be stamped. But the plaintiff did i
ot fully prove his case by showing the t
Dte, said 1t was the same as mentioned in
le document. Judgment reversed.
No. 5Oli. George Collins, ct ais, appel
nts, vs.. Mississippi and Mexican Gulf
anal and Drainage Company.-From Su-
sriOr District Court Appeal dismissed, a
e separate suits of the plaintiffs in no case +
to $500
No. 5l3S. Mary Ann Riley, appellant, vs..
r. & Mrs. Condran.-From Sixth District Z