New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-11
COURT RECORD.
rUEsDAY, MARCH 10, 1874.

1
| United States vs.. Hadnot ct als.-On trial
Supreme Court.
Present-All the judges
Mr.. Wade r. Young, of Catahoula,
and Mr.. James T. O'Reilley, of Orleans,
were admitted to practice.
The following decisions were rendered:
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELING.
No. $685. Succession of Walter o. VIM.
From parish Of Rapides. The interference
| of the public administrator is otficious.
| The succession was not vacant. The ques-
| ton whether the executrix should be re-
| moved is not before the court. Judgment
reversed.
No. 5O4l. Manuel J. de Lizardi ct al. vs..
| Hugh M. Kenny, ct ais, appellants
| the Ninth Judicial District Two hundred
| dollars being considered a sufficient attor-
ney's fee in the proceedings, the Judgment
| reduced from $1,000 is affirmed.
No. 5036. State VS.. Augustus Sambola,
| appellant From the Ninth Judicial Dis
| trict. Defendant was sentenced to three
| years in the Penitentiary for manslaughter.
The judge refused new trial. As this is
| the only error complained Of the Judgment
| is affirmed.
No. 4936. Mrs. Amanda j. O'Neal VS..
| }. W. Burbridge ct al, appellants From
| the Seventh Judicial District. AS the wife 8
| mortgage was duly registered, demand of
| payment made, and notice given to third
possessOr, and the evidence sustains her
| judgment against her husband and the plea
OF prescription is unfounded the judgment
| is affirmed.
| No. $3.50. John A. Eastin VS.. succession of
William A. Osborn. appellant.-From Ninth
| Judicial District. The draft sued on ap-
| pears prescribed, but it is alleged that lit
| was interrupted by suit. The evidence is
! conflicting whether the drawer had funds
with the drawees. The presumption is they
had. | Pars. Bills and Notes, 800. Judg-
| ment reversed.
| No. 1887. Mrs. Lydia Hardie VS.. st. Louis
Mutual Life Insurance Company, appellant.
From Seventh District Court of Orleans.
John w. Hardie applied to be insured Sep
TENDER Ia. 1867, the contract of application
not to be binding till the first premium was
paid. 1t was accepted in st. Louis, and a
| policy issued and forwarded to the New Or
leans agent. 1t was not binding till he
| cOuntersigned it and received the premium.
Hardie died before the agent received the
| policy. No premium was paid, nor policy
cOuntersigned. The contract was suspen-
sive conditional obligation. G. C.. 2045.
Judgment reversed.
BY JUSTICE TALIAFERRO.
| No. SLAB. State ex rel Hays & New VS..
Judge of tha,Superior District Court
! plicatiOn fOf writ of prohibition, alleging
that the Judge is without power to take
action after the transfer Of a Judgment,
which, it is claimed, was not among the
assets of the Accommodation Bank, as Sc
| questrated. The action has been to fix a
day for hearing a rule for contempt The
REALTORS have not presented case author
izing the court to issue the order. 1t would
| not be in aid Of the appellate jurisdiction OF
the court, and is refused
No. 3095. C. S. Sauvinet VS.. Thomas l..
| Maxwell, appellant.-From Eighth District
| Court of Orleans. Plaintiff was elected
the records, which were returned on an Or
der of court, and the money, which defend
| ant kept. The court below found that the
| outgoing sheriff should complete any exe'
cution he may have begun at common law.
but found no direct decision Of this State.
When sheriff is functus oficio he can exc
| cute no process, but there is no improperly
in his paying money to parties entitled to
receive it. He and not tie incoming sheriff
is responsible. Judgment reversed.
| BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
| No. 445S. Chaffraix s. Agar vs.. c. c.
Packard ct ais, appellants.-From Second
titfs seized an undivided half of the Sarah
plantation, sold by them to defendants &c
| pay the second of three notes for the price
secured by mortgage. The sale was arrested
| by C. G. Packard, under Code of Practice,
| 7a9. We do not think the facts alleged war.
| rant an injunction. Judgment affirmed.
! Morgan, j.. cOncurring; WHY, j.. concurs
in lengthy opinion; Chief Justice Lude'
| No. 1854. Z. j. Gay & Co.. appellant, VS..
j. B. Lejeune, Jr., ct al.-FrOm Seventh Ju,
dicial District. After property OF plaintiff
was seized, it was agreed it should be
| shipped to certain firm, and the proceeds
held by the sheriff. He never received the
money. He was the plaintiffs agent, and
not acting in his official capacity, and his
sureties are not liable. He having several
times promised to pay the money, and
! having paid portion, the Judgment as to
| the sureties is reversed and affirmed as to
him.
No. 1904. Myra F. Minor vs.. James L.
| Barker. appellant-From parish court of
Iberville. Plaintiff, having Judgment
| against succession, seeks payment by
| filing third opposition to the payment of
| the proceeds Of a sale to another claim.
! The exception to the form OF proceeding,
| that the proceeds should 60 into the hands
| of the executor to be placed in the account
| filed, should have been maintained. The
! auctiOneer is not the party to retain the
| funds. Judgment reversed.
No $685.. w. L. Gushing ct ais, appel
lants, VS.. S. L. Harmonson.-FrOm the par
| ish court of West Feliciana Plaintiff, as
| administrator of G.. A. Miles, sues the
| widow, heirs and creditors, to annul the
succession sale and all mOrtuary proceed
| ings subsequent to it, on the ground that
| his attorney exceeded his authority. Plain
| tiff, January, 1867. through w. u. Winter,
| applied for letters of administration of the
| succession OF G. w. Miles, as creditor.
Sale was made in July last, only part cash
| being paid, no creditor being fully satisfied
latf tn FOL
about the SALE He claims not to have re-
ceived Winters letters. Other creditors
paid their proportion Of the costs. In
April. 1873, Mrs. Harmonson ruled the ad-
mipistrator to show cause why execution
should not issue against him personally,
and the rule was made absolute. We have
no hesitation in rejecting PLAINTIFF demand.
He took an oath to faithfully discharge his
duty. He has admitted he has not per-
formed it. The evidence convinces us he
was not ignorant of the acts Of his attorney.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 5000 Il. Burbank, appellant. vs. j.. y.
Pierce.-From Thirteenth Judicial District.
Suit to annul contract OF sale OF one
sixteenth of mine in Illinois for $500 cash
and two notes of $3.50 each, defendant to
give good and sufficient title, which ne
subsequently, declined to do. The contract
was rejected in evidence not being properly
stamped, the court holding stamp for sale
OF real property and not one for personal
was necessary. The court erred, as the
document has the stamp necessary ana can
celed. As the plaintiff was endeavorlng
to show defendants inability to comply
with his contract and not to establish his
own title parol testimony was admissible.
Judgment reversed.
No. 1862 F. b. Fleitas, appellant, VS.; Con-
solidated Association of Planters.-From
Superior District Court. Judgment affirmed,
Justice Morgan dissenting.
No. 5lO1 State VS.. SUGGESTIONS OF Masters
at al appellants-From Thirteenth Judi