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

No 1910. Mira. Adele Gillum W. II. Oxlesby, ap.
The wife can only be held liable by adopting the
g.: r. "a, COL Rob-, las. Judgment affirmed.
Dnrbin. appellant.-From sixth District Court of
Orleans The plaintiff is presumed to have been
he Is To-
tice Of the trial 10 A.. 1886. No bill of exceptions
having been taken, the court presumes jury was
waived 8 A., 376. Judg ment affirmed
No. 4ll3. Jean Lacsze Vs. Francis L. Dumas, ap-
pellant-From Fifth District Court OF Orleans.-It
il clear the defendant does not owe the amount of
remanded.
No. 4Oz7. Same vs.. same.--Case remanded.
No. 1910 3D. Denechaud Jean Tuscoui, ap-
pelant.--From Eighth District Court Of Orleans.
The defendant had no right to alter the leased
premises. His rights were not interfered with.
gate between the Washington Hotel and the
Pavilion. Affirmed
No 1861. Emma T. Thacker Vs. Thomas Dunn.
appellant.-From Second District Court of Orleans.
Judgment in favor OF defendant reduced to S9lS.
the note and mortgage to be annulled and the ae-
No. 34sl. Keep Caul6eld, appellants VS.. Marx
Levy i Co-From Fourth District Court of Or
leans. Judgment anuulled the plaintiff to re-
cover SO oo6 80, with interest from april 10. 1869.
No. 3il2 Henry d. Shepherd VS.. heirs T. G.
Turchel, appellants-From Sixth District Court.
The succession of Ruloff was opened in the proper
who could not be sued i'll the Second District
Court. the court Of limited jurisdiction must
W.
a39; Rob. 70. Judgment affirmed.
No. 1892. Alfred Marchand va Franklin J. Pratt.
appellant.-From Seventh District Court. Judg.
ment Of : 1925 in favor of plaintiff affirmed.
JUSTICE HOWELL.
No 1901. New Orleans. Mobile and Chattanooga
Railroad Company vs. city Of New Orleans, appel
liant, Charles Morgan intervenOr.-Plaintiff en-
Joined the city from interfering with rights grant.
ed by section fifteen of act No. 26 of 1869 to erect
depots Oh the levee. bounded by Canal, Delta and
Poy dras Streets and BY Grod. Water and Callope
CT, hay all rrah nf fha rvQfa nT-
erty. The answer is general denial. The inter
vent!on has been disposed of. The question is the
right If the State to make u grant.
In 1920 the batture was owned by Bertrand
Gravier, who, in September, agreed with the city
that certain portions should be used only for
natural public purposes. In 1886 the city was di.
vided and tho com prOmise confirmed In 1850 the
Legislature authorized the second municipality to
Law off two additional streets. June 20, 1851, a
municipal committee agreed to lay of three
streets, certain squares sold, three reserved for
msrkethouses and that portion not sold be vested
city succeeded to its rights and the title of the
original owners municipal corporation is the
investing Of the people cot Of place with the local
not conferred 1t possesses two classes of pow ers
and rights, public and private. In all that relates
the people. Once conferred. the rights to De
exercised at the will Of the corporation. Dillon on
ed ehsp b and M Cooley DO c.as
as the rights of individuals. % VT, II. lis
private property is guarded by the constitution.
securing the 1nvlOlaDli1ty contracts. 10 Cal
$50. The Legislature must secure its property for
the uses of those of those for whom it originally
purchased. Justice Story, in Craneh 1886, 81;
, Kent 3O5 Dartmouth College case Wheat 5l8
6b3. Urban property fronting on q water course is
entitled to alluvium. 10 L. 2I3; u A. 81; A. sos.
We conclude municipal corporation may own
troll in opposition to it's will We think the squares
intended for the depos Of plaintiff was acquired
in fee simple by the city, and can not be taken by
said 30 be locus publicus in Parish VS.. Municipal
ity, 8 A. las. but that case went of on An excep.
ton. Judge Martin, 10 [. 249 said the formations
belonged to the city, and claimed to be sustained
The majority of the court decided in favor of the
riparian propretOrs who have conveyed their
gifts to the city. In our opinion the injunction
was improperly issued, but as the city has made
no claim against the plaintiffs, our former decree
ten and inhibi'ing the plaintiffs from occupying
the property. Injunction dissolved and Judgment
Nj. Justice WHY concurred for reasons 81 ven in
his former opinion.
Chief Justice Ludeling dissenting cites, 10 Peters
fee 81 simple. e. A. 4is; II A. 7io; Mo- 2so The
m t.
ated to public use. 6 Mart 2sl; ls La. 23o; u La.
4sl IN. s. s6. GIG It is public place. 10 A. 81; IL
troll public things, La ls2; 10 T.. 326 Is La 2ls;
3 A. 800; A. lag; Peters 49, IS N. Y. 1884, Redf.
ESQ Miss ss a Ds Mo- 49, u Sa s F. 1s 49,
e
can see no reason to deny to the Legislature the
power to grant these lands for depots IS Wal 67s;
81 n Y. sg7 Is Wend. 37,; IL A. 338 The decision
depends entirely whether the act granting them
is constitutional or not, aud there are serious
doubts on the subject.
pelant-Frcm Fifth District Court of Orleans
Judgment reduced from $500 to $3.50 and af-
frmed.
No. 34s4 B. R. Hunt appellant, vs.. N. De Cour-
soy-From Fifth District Court Of orleans Judg
ment affirmed, with S58 damages.
lant-From Fifth District Court of Orleans. The
plaintiff and appellee, in answer to the appeal, de-
clares that she is willing that the Judgment OF the
lower court in her favor be annulled aud he, suit
dismissed. Judgment r versed and suit dismissed.
No. 1855 City Of New Orleans VS.. Esther Klein.
appellant.-From Superior District Court. The
the city, the debt being created before the prop
erty came within the limits of the city. is dis.
ordinance, see City vs.. Crescent Mutual Insurance
Company, rs An. 800. There is error in allowing
interest for one year before the taxes were due.
Nos. 4797. 4s4a 4sl1, 494s, 1858. 1885, 1879, 4ssl
1882, 4s56 1880. City of New Orleans Estate of
: s a Mary B Mss agnr1
Althoff, C. T. Howard ct ais. aud RobertJ Ker, ap-
peants.-From Superior District Court. The
judgment in these cases is amended as in the case
of City VS.. Klein.
No. 1924 state VS.. o. H. schonhsusen From
First District Court of Orleans. The wOrds paper
currency of the United States comes within the
law R. s. $40, do the words ''prOmissory note OF
the value of $780," 4. 8. 1851; 10 A. 800 The alb
sence Of jurors was matter in the judges discre'
II A. AZ. There wac no error in the ruling OF in
the entry Of nolls prosequi as to the second
No. 4O8O Henry D. Sorrell Vs. Victor Laurent ap-
pellant-FrOm Seventh District Court of Orleans.
Plaintiff resident of Ohio sued defendant, resi-
Orleans The court was without jurisdiction c.
P. l62. Judgment annulled
No. 3465. State VS.. John c. Bloom ct al, appel
l,n atric Court n Orlaaua The
defense of a surety on an auctiOneers bond that
he had not obtained license or taken the oath.
other respects. The plea OF prescription under act
of 1862 page 4 is not allowed as the principal was
indebted 20 the State at the date of the statute.
No. 3.46 Succession of L. NJ. Victor Hebert.-
From Second District Court of Orleans. judgment
No. 1910 L. H. Gardner Co. vs.. NJ. L. Byrne &
Co., appellants.-Fro Seventh District Court.
Judgment affirmed with 5000 damages-
By JUSTICE wYLY.
No. 52I9. State OK rel. Van Norden Judge OF
a constitutional right and should be jealousy
guarded Mandamus made peremptOry.
No. $500. State of Louisiana OK rel. D. A. Weber
appellant, VS.. C. L. Fisher. From the Seventh Ju-
dicia Dstri t. Controversy for the office of tax col
lector, the Governor having removed the defend.
amt has sh anoaed OF
No. 5097. State vs.. William L. Bauer. From the
Ninth Judicial Observation-Disclosures condemnng
appellant to three years imprisonment for stealing
affirmed.
No. 1857. Mrs. Elizabeth Genge VS.. Charles Camp
bell ct al, appellants.-FIOm Fourth District
Court of orleans. Judgment giving plaintiff 1000
annulled. the defendant to execute conveyance
to plaintiff on payment of S27" 81
No. 1850. Elias .. Demas, appellant, vs.. Charles
Carpenter.-FrOm Thirteenth Judicial District
Judgment annulled: plaintiff to recover $500 and
S $500 for each of the years 1869 and 1872.
No. 34Ol. P. g. Nugent vs.. city of New Orleans
appellant-From Fifth District Court of Orleans
Judgment reduced from $500 TO $500, to be
equally divided between lothian Potter and John
O'kOuTke.
No. 1851 A. Marchand, appellant, Vs. Loan and
Pledge Association.-From Fifth District Court OF
Orleans. claim for money expended and time
EMPLOYED before the association was organized, car
not be regarded as debt of the institution
Judgment affirmed.