New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-10
COURT RECORD.
AONDAY, MARCH 9. 1870.

MoNDAY, MARCH 9. 1874
Cnfted States Circuit Court.
United States W. Hadnot ct ais. On trial.
Supreme Court.
Present-Chief Justice Ludeling aud JUS
tees Taliaferro, WHY, Howell and Morgan.
Assistant Attorney General Henry G.
Dibble presented his commission and was
recognized by the court.
The court rendered the following de-
cisions and will render more to-day:
By CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELING.
No. 5O46 George L. Walton VS.. II. e.
Young, appellant.-From Fifth Judicial
District. Suit on drafts and note of de-
PENDANT, who denies that plaintiff is their
owner. The drafts were transferred by the
aeceptors after maturity. Being in their
possession they were extingushed by pay
ment or novatiOn and became mere vouch-
ers. The only action would have been for
account. The claim for the note is estab-
lished. Judgment annulled and reversed
in favor of defendant for the drafts, for the
plaintiff for note.
No. 5OS9. Brannon Simmons ct al, ap-
pellants, VS.. X. X. AndersOn.-From Thir-
teenth Judicial District. Suit on promis-
sorry notes the plaintiffs being non-suited
on defense of failure OF consideration. This
oeieuse ID Hot eeI0oiSnou' ouuS1uon' AZ
versed.
No. SOIL Succession of Antoine Decuir.-
From the parish of Pointe Coupee.
Suit for nullity of judgment Mrs.
Decuir claims she did not sign the
tableau and that her attorney had no
authority to do so; that it is not cor
rect and not advertised, and that her claims
as privileged creditor were ignored. Ii the
judgment homologating the final account
-~,,n I,
20 A., IS; @ A., i78. The evidence shows
that her attorney was duly authorized.
More than twelve months have elapsed
from the rendition of the judgment. She
can not take advantage Of her own laches
Judgment affirmed.
No. 5lO2. William L. McMillen, appel
liant, va. Robert X. Anderson, tax col
lectOr-FrOfn Thirteenth Judicial District.
Plaintiff eDjoined defendant from Selling
his property under act No. az of 1873. The
defendant was acting under 2 commission
pay on the ground that Governor Kellogg
had no authority to commission tax col
lectors, being himself usurper. Plaintiff
pointed out property to be seized after
threatening the collector. The next day
his agent drove off the keeper, barricsded
the windows AID locked the doors. The
collector forced an entrance and again
made . seizure. The only violation of law
has been by the plaintiff. Although
cludes regular allegations, opportunity
to some settled course Of judicial
proceedings, yet this is not universally true.
1t does not apply to proceeding to collect
the public revenue. IL Mich, 1879; 10 How,
272; Yerg., 26O, 500; Hill, 146 The reve-
nue. bill fixes the amount of the tax, and
act No. AZ provides the manner of collect
ing it. 1t is the mode provided by the Leg
islsture for enforcing right of the sover-
eign, and is due process of law. The rul-
inquired into ia proceeding between third
parties is,cOrrect. Ii A., 403; % A.. 30; %
A., 263, 267. Judgment affirmed.
No $685. Joseph HOyt g. Co. ys. Eaton
& Bsrstow, appellants.-FrOm the Ninth
Judicial District Defendants seized certain
bonds of plaintiff and the seizure was set
aside and enjOined on the ground that they
did not win the judgment; that the bonds
were payable to the sheriff, who. being in
terested, could not seize them; that a sus-
pensive appeal had been taken. The in
junction was perpetuated. The bonds were
for the price Of personal property attached
by plaintiffs. They simply represented the
property attached and did not belong to
the sheriff. TIE judgment dissolving The
attachment having been affirmed, the at
tachment could not stand in the way of the
defendants. The right to point out prop
erty to be seized is personal to the debtor,
and he not having complained, the others
have no right TO do 30. Judgment reversed
and injunction dissolved. with ten per cent
damages.
No. 5O72. Cath. Norwood, appellent, rs.
Gordian A. Smith.-From Seventh Judicial
District. Plaintiff holds judicial mort
gage against defendant and caused an
execution to issue against his property, but
q prior mortgage to Ann E. Smith pre-.
vented a sale. On rule to show cause
why this mortgage should not be erased as
prescribed and simulated there was judg-
sary to consider the objections, as the evil
dence does not establish the allegations. !
Judgment affirmed.
No. 1921. Maria l.. Borrow Ss. Joseph F. |
Sollibellos ct ais, appellant-From Ninth |
Judicial District. Injunction suit to |
prevent the execution of fieri facias. |
The question presented is whether a mar |
red woman may compromise suit against |
herself. No one will dispute her right to |
10 so. Transactions have between the in.
crested parties force equal to the author. |
ty of the things adjudged. The Injunction
v as improvidently issued. The lntervenors,
VI. Ryan and j. w. Sentelle, were impro. |
,erly allowed their claims in the in Juno. /
ion suit. Judgment perpetuating the ia.
unction annulled. judgment against plain. !
itf and interyenOrs.
Justice Howell, dissenting. PARTICLES 1898 |
md 24l2 Revised Statutes prevent . wife
binding herself by compromise.
No. 5lO7. Mrs. Abigail Williams, appel.
ant, VS.. Mrs. Samuel A. Williams -srom
'arish of st. Helena. The proceeding to
destitute an administrator, and to force
i'm to account, is probate in character, and
he parish court had jurisdiction. Substan-
ial justice having been done the judgment
, affirmed.
No. 1866. First National Bank of Macon
g. Il. b. Slmms, appellant.-From the Sixth
district Court Of Orleans. The executory
recess was enjoined on the grounds that
o such corporation existed; no evidence
f plaintiffs title to the note; that defend
nt's title to the purchased land was not
effect. Whether the plaintiff be corpora
On or private association of persons is of
o consequence, SO far as its right to en-
,rce the collection of the note is concerned.
here is sufficient proof of the ownership Of
ne note. The plaintiff in injunction does
OF allege sufficient. c. c., 1857. The par
es called in warranty are not before the
ourt. Judgment affirmed.
No. 5O57. Succession of Henderson Ran
parish of Madison. Contest
n administration. Attempt to defeat the
aim OF the widow by attempting to show
lat decedent had another wife in Missis-
ppi, married in slavery. Supposing the
Tvs of that State the same as of Louisiana,
RELIEVING with a woman there at that time
id not prevent his subsequent marriage to
woman in Louisiana. There is no evil
eDce the latter knew of the existence of |
le first woman. As widow and natural
ltrix, she is entitled to the appointment.
ears VS.. Wilson. 5 A. 689; c. G. 1887, lila.
alignment reversed.
No. 1896. Daniel Gillen, appellant, We.
Dencer Jones--From Fifteenth Judicial
istrict. Suit against the drawer of draft.
efense, want OF protest and notice. There
nO.nroOf of lacheS and tha defendant Is | ,