New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-11

contracted with one Allison in August, 1867
| to erect building. He purchased materials
OF plaintiff and afterward Abandoned the
contract. This suit is for the materials
and the court gave judgment for $Il99 10,
put DID not recognize the privilege and
there is no foundation for it. 1t is not shown
that the husband had sufficient authority to
DInd the plaintiff to pay the debt of another
Inc promise must be in writing. Levy &
Dieter rs. Dubois, "a A., 40l; Merry va. La
buzan, % A., TAI. The contractor did not
record his contract and no privilege ex-
listed. Allen VS.. Wills, A.. 81; White VS..
Taylor, 6 A., 4S0; l6 A., l27; C. c., 2772-
Judgment reversed.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. 5l2l. C. Carrutz, syndic, Judge vs. of
the Superior District Court.-The relator
should have taken an appeal from the judg
mept declaring the court had no jursdic-
ton. Rule for mandamus dismissed
No. 4S7l. Citizens Bank, appellant VS..
Clarence L. James.-F1Om Thirteenth Judi
cial District. Joshua James owed plaintiff
100000 and mortgaged his plantation. His
note was due April |, 1867. On March II,
1867, the bank agreed with defendant to
fOreclose and purchase for $4,000 and then
sell to him for $4,000 at twenty years.
The bank foreclOsed and bought, and defen-
dant has been in possession ever since
without paying any installments. Defen-
dant claims to have complied with the
agreement The jury found for the defen-
dant and judgment for possession and
$4,000. As the defendant has been in pos
session it is no excuse to say the bank did
not buy the property till October, 1869. The
defendant was not in error OF fact. &. G.,
1921 If the bank refused to take the note
it was because it was not according to the
agreement. The allegation of spending
$4,000 in improvements is Inconsistent with
other statements. Judgment reversed and
ordered in favor of plaintiff that defendant
comply with the agreement oy writ of
possession issue.
No. 1915. Mrs. Anne Ford, appellant, vs.
Mrs. Ann +. Kittredge. parish court
of Assumption. Suit to destitute defend
ant for naladministration. The admins
tratrix has filed an acknowledgment of the
note claimed by plaintiffs, but claims the
succession was discharged by time being
given to the joint obligor. Kittredge, the
decedeDt, was not a surety, but one of the
two joint makers, and was not discharged
by the time allowed. If husband and wife
are separated in bed and board and prop
erty by Judgment and remain apart many
years and afterward become gecOnciled the
law of Louisiana affords no warrant for
saying the Judgment of separation of
property is wiped out or that proper
ty acquired in the interim falls into
the community. No article in the
Louisiana code corresponds with article
l45l of Code Nap, which provides for this
The defendant has not filed her account.
K. s., 9. She claims there are no funds. If
so she has not performed her duty. Judg-
ment reversed, and defendant gemoved
from the administration.
No. 5025. Emily Archinard VS.. Henry A.
Boyce and Citizens Bank; Powhatan
Clark, intervenor and appellant.-From
Ninth Judicial District. Judgment re-
versed. Judgment in favor of appellant,
and property to be returned to him.
No. 5577. William G. James VS.. j. Edwin
Chase, appellant.-From Seventh Judicial
District. Judgment affirmed in reasons as
signed by district judge.
Superior District Court.
City of New Orleans VS.. James Stafford.
Rule nisi allowed, returnable March Is.
James Stafford VS.. city of New Orleans.--
By consent of counsel the Iule herein is
fixed for March Is, 1874.
Second DistBict COuvts
SUGGESTIONS of Jean Cesar Schmidt, Jean
Garcia , Nora and George Lickeadvath
opened.