New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-07
NEW ORLEANS, TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1874.

other proceedings as may be requisite. L
| is, therefore, ordered that our decree here.
IN be set aside, that the judgment appealed
from be reversed, and this case be remand
| ed for the taking of evidence and to be bro
| ceeded in according to law.
| No. 1867. Succession of Etienne Carbon
| From Second District Court of Orleans
| Judgment reversed. The rule taken by
| appeilees, on the administrator. A Z. Car
| lon. is dismissed.
No. 5063. George L. Walton VS.. Police
jury of Concordia.-From Thirteenth Ju.
dicial District. Judgment declared null
and action dismissed.
No. 5i90. State ex rel. Hays and Benton
Us. judge of the Superior District Court
Mandamas made peremptOry to grant an
appeal from judgment making absolute a
rule to set aside transfer OF certain judg-
ments, the amount involved being over $500.
BY JUSTICE wYLY.
No. 1868. Jean Pardos heirs vs.. A. A.
Pardo, appeIlant.-FrOm the Sixth District
Court of Orleans. The defendant ia
estopped from denying the truth of his
oath in the insolvent court. In the face of
the schedule filed by him he can not set up
an account against his brother dating back
to 1910. If it was valid claim it should
have been put on the schedule. Judgment
affirmed.
No. 1858. Spaulding, Bidwell & McDon.
ough, appellants vs. Rhoda Rosewood
From Fourth District Court of Orleans.
Plaintiffs ailege defendant broke her en-
gagement to play and has instituted nine
suits to compel payment, and that they
have enjOined the further prosecution of
the suits in the Fourth District Court.
which, on hearing, properly dissolved the
Injunction. Act No. 2 of 1870, section three,
fho E;rbth
jurisdiction of injunctions, except in cases
before other judges who have issued an
order of seizure. The Fourth District
Court was without jurisdiction. Besides
it had no authority to restrain the trial of
defendants suits before justices of the
peace.
No. 1884. Cohen & Wilson vs.. George
w. Avery ct ais, appellants. From Fifth
District Court of Oreans.-Plaintiffs seized
and Garcia Y Mora enjOined the sae-22
A. All. The sheriff. Avery, improperly re-
leased the property pending the action, and
Judgment was given against him for the
amount The sureties on the Injunction
bond appealed. Avery did not. There is no
legal obligation between appellees and ap-
pellants. judgment against Mora, and of
Avery in warranty against Mora reversed
No. 1886. P. Gallagher VS.. B. Abadie, ap-
pcidut-T IOlu luc ClALu blSlTuJ COuFC OF
Orleans. There is no evidence the property
was seized, or that there was sufficient
advertisement. A justice Of the peace has
no authority to appoint an appraiser IN be-
half of the defendant. The sale was in
valid. The plaintiffs, finding that the prop
erty had been illegally sold, properly re-
fused to ratIfy the sale. Judgment affirmed
No. Bill. +. A. Switzer vs. Steamboat
Frolic. E. Z. Norton. assignee and ap-
leans. Suit for wages, the defendants hav-
ing subsequently been declared bankrupts
1t is a personal action against the owners
10 enforce the lien under. r. S. 1904, and
c. p, 1S5, $50. It is not a proceeding
IN rem, and the State court has Jurisdiction
IL Wal. 1856 The State court having OBJ
tanned lawful Jurisdiction. could not be d.
vested of it by the bankrupt court. Bumps
Bankruptcy, 1S7. i9S, le2. Judgment af-
tirmed.
No. 329l. Wheeless g. Pratt VS.. F. NJ.
Fisk, appellant.-From Fourth District
Court of Orleans. The discharge in bank
rnptcy will protect the defendant from re-
sponsibility to the plaintiff, but can not
avail to dismiss the appeal. Case continu nued,
that the assignee may be cited
No 50a5. John Gordon. administrator, VS..
Fahrenberg & Penn. appellants--Fcom
Thirteenth Judicial District. The land in
10 JOIN NUN,
who conveyed it to John X. Ruth, by !
deed subsequently destroyed by fire. No |
advertisement of the destruction of it was |
necessary to prove its contents. s A., l30; !
10 A. 4o3. AS against a mere possessor |
without title joint heir may maintain |
petitory action. 3 L., rs; heirs of Thomp- |
son VS.. Berdger. % A. Judgment amended |
BY striking out the part giving plaintiff So, |
JD0 feet OF lumber, and the Judgment in re-
and otherwise affirmed, the |
right being reserved to Penn to remove the |
saw mill.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. 1904. Victor Tauner We S. Cambon.
appellant.-From Sixth District Court of
Orleans. The evidence is not satisfactory
hat the plaintiff was employed On a con-
.ract FOR a year, and it is not shown that
'uchis the custom in defendants business.
he was discharged because he closed the
store at an unreasonable hour. He was
,aid for the time he worked, and took the
money without objection. Judgment re-
-ersed.
No 32S7. Herman Budinski VS.. Spauld-
ng. Bidwell & McDonough, appellants
frOm the Eighth District Court of Orleans.
Plaintiff shows by written contract that he
vas employed to play the second French
lorn for thirty weeks, at SO per week, and
hat he was discharged without cause at
he end Of seven. Defendants deny the
discharge. but had told plaintiff not to play
nd to go away. which we think sufficient.
10 justification is alleged. The plaintiff is
ntitled to pay for the whole term. c. G.,
7i9. Judgment affirmed.
No. ;3:a1S5 William J. Taylor, appellant, vs..
Iehlor. Updike & Co.-From Sixth District
;ourt of Orleans. Plaintiff being employed
u contract for one year and discharged
7lthout cause at the END Of ajfe~ months,
entitled to full pay under G. c. 2749.
Judgment reversed, plaintiff to recover
1000 costs and privilege.
No. 4S05. Louis Barthol Va. city of New
orleans, ppellant.-From Superior District
'ourt. Plaintiff enjoins defendant from
larry market, claiming that it is a tax on
is occupation. 1t is not tax, but rent
nd does not violate the constitution. 1t
as contract, under the ordinance, be-
Teen the plaintiff and the city. Judgment
eversed and injunction dissolved
No. 1896. Jean Dubarry VS.. City of New
rleans, appellant.-From Superior Dis
'ict Court. Judgment reversed and in
lnctiOn dissOlven.
ig.-From Second .District Court of Or
ans The creditors attempt to force the
!dow to place on the inventory several
Ollcies of insurance, which were issued in
lvor of the wife and child. There had
cen separation of property and judg-
ent against the husband for $500. He
aid the wife $i75 So and transferred the
,rniture in house No. 81 Hospital street. No
Dinion is expressed on the effect of the sep
ration. A man may take out policy on
is life in the name Of another, or may ,
ansfer to whom he pleases. 1t is
ot piece of property, but the evil
ence OF a contract. If the policy is
sued to the wife the amount belongs to
er. If she could be compelled to inven-
ry it. Its object would bs destroyed.
alignment affirmed.
Chief Justice Ludeling dissenting, says