New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-04-18
Important ieecisiGn ty Judge MeGnier
with Reference TO the Jnrisdicifon Of
lr.vicns ,s,e Dou..

Important isecisiGn by Judge Mennie
with Reference TO the Jnrisdicifon q
Justices of ths Peace.
The bar and the public generally wi
doubtless read with care tho following abb
decision by Judge Mernier, OF the Thir
District Court, as the question, therein dc
termined is one OF great Importance, PAL
licularly 10 the planting interests. We AT
informed that some 300 suits OF SIM. a
character are virtually disposed Of By thi
Judgment:
REASONS FOE JUDCMESI.
State Of Louisiana ex rel Stanley i
Webb VS.. /. ". Falls. seventh Justice OF tn,
peace for the parish OF Orleans-Applica
ton for a witt Of prohibition End certiorari
Two questions are presented by tn,
rleadings for differentiation by this court
l. Has the Seventh Justice Court iurisdic
ton Of the persons OF the defendants
Stanley and Webb, in the suit Of Ieno1
Lewis, No. 3lo7 OF the docket OF said JUS
tlcs COURT
. II it has Jurisdiction Of The person. OF
said defendants, are the proceedings had in
the said suit before said Justice court valid
Stanley is the lessee OF one Mrs Foley
plantations, situated in the parish OF As.
sumption, and Webb is acting as overseer
or manager thereof, baing perhaps inter
ested to some extent II the crop raj ed on
that plantation. From the evidence aaduced
before this court it clearly appears that
Webb has continually resided with his
family on that plantation for the last four
or i've years; that he is still now living
there with his family. ana that he voted at
the election OF November last at one of
the election precincts oil the parish of
Assumption. True 1t is, the principle is
laid down IN our Jurisprudence that
the fact that q person has voted in
this State is not sufficient to show a
change of domiciie from another State, il it
be proved that he never made q perm anent
change of residence; but the actual contnu-
ance of residence of Webb with his family
for the last four or FIVE years in the parish
of Assumption. where he has bis principal
domestic establishment, combined Yith The
fact of voting there, is sufficient on the part
OF said Webb to show ontDlo aud fa(to his
intention TO tx his domlci!e in the parish Of
Assumption; and the subsequent deolara.
ton that he nav have made on one occasion
IN presence OF Lenon Lewis. that The was"
or that .he is from Kentucky, can not
create conclusive presumption against his
intention OF a permanent establishment in
this parish. combined with the fact Of Il
residence there tor more than four wears.
When, or the subject o. comicile, 4
partyS acts are irreconciaOIa with his
declaration, the latter shall go Tor nothing.
10 A., "a; II A, 436. As to S.anlry, the
testimony OF several witnesses who have
had some business relations with him
established that his PRINCIPAL
tiomegtio Establishment, his de,uicile. is al
Arcoa, in the parish uf Iangipahoa. where
be has been living ior years with his family,
ana Where he is still now engaged il bust
ness and keeping q store. il is frua that
Stanley comes from time to time to New
Oreans, where be remains during d few
1ays to buy cotton or TO attend 70 soma
other business: that he has & desk or an
Office in This city, wherein he goes to
transact bis business VIXEN at hew Orleans:
but these acts on the part OF Stanley 90 not
constitute, in the contemplation Of the law.
SHch an alternate residence IN the parishes
Of Orleans and of Tangipahea as 10 author
ze his creditors ID consider cithe. of
hefe two places az his principal es-
and TO cite him before
the tribunal OF either of those two parishes.
4 party is cons dered as residing alter.
lateiy IN different parishes when be is q we'll
ng a portion OF the time in one parish and a
portion in another, and not when lie goes in
| PARISH whore be passes bnt few DAYS in
. week or in a month for the mere purpose
Vi buying cotton or OF attending 10 sumo
her business transactions. c. P, article
81, l.. 5J7 ana 5t3: a. $50 Under the
tatute Of March le, ,36l, amending article
81 OF the Code Of Practice. the defendant
must be sued before the Judge having
Jurisdiction Of the place Of his dorieile or
esiGence, and he is not perm stsd to elect |
ny other d0fnicile or residence fer tia pur |
AZ .,EI Il. l,r7t = y, ~
0 the exceptions expressly provided by |
aw; that il. By article ll3 Of tho Code Of |
'ractice. From the Interpretation given |
y the Supreme Court to the statute Of |
larch j., 1901, above referred 10, prohibit |
az defendant from being sued Uus of the |
aiish Of his donicile, except il cases ex. |
ressly provided by law, the 1ourt OF one |
arish can not take cosnizsEce OF suits
galnst a person having his dOnliciie in an
ther parish; and a judgment rendered |
gainst a person by the court OF d parish
IN rent from that in which lie is oomi-
iiated, il a mere Dai!ity for want Of mis-
ictlon r0ti3ne pCrS0ar. Webb and Stan
y. the real parties defendant IN tie suit
Ienon Lewis, being both Gomici!;atei
ut OF the parish Of Orleans at The time of
le institution OF said suit, and the claim OF |
. Lewis being not embraced within the
Icepti0n created By the article yG4 Of the
ode OF Practice, the Seventh Justice Court
7 the paiisn CT Orleans is without juri5.
ctlon in the premiseA, re- 507iG PEI ScHu:U,P,
ID the judgment rendered hy that court
favor O. said Henon LOWS has no legal
Iistence. But it is coutendel on the part |
the counsels for tie Respondents herein.
IA the Judgment OF the loUer court. If OF
} legal effect g - judgment Ia a.ysoaua1, |
nevertheless valid and binding q 8 iudg- |
cnt ~ rem: and 20 support that prvunsi- |
N, they rely upon the decisions OF the |
ipreme Court il the cases Of Hennins
steamer st. Helena, e.. =. $40; Celes, ;
&c Dejona Ts. steamboat O.ceola. captain
q owners. u A.. p. S79, and GideD,
ledes a Go. ". h.. Manning, i An, p.
]. Wherein it is held that where plaintiff !
.iIns privilege on cotton or some other !,
nperty. and has il seguestered In a
ierert parish from That Uf tie d0nict7s | ,
The defendant. the personal action will
dismissed, and the action ssl ron: main
ned" The >npreme Cont in the above
ntloned cases, considering the privilege | I,
following the property On which l. is by ! !
= attached and viewing be matter there | !
under d principle o. equity, permitted | ,
: creditors to seCuester or TO proyisionallv
~ that property fer the satisfaction VI !
NJ privileged ciaims, through an order II
amazing from a court without nIi .diC.
= % thS persons OF tGb ntltHuaDlS, IHcre- +.
laying down the doctrine that u tribunal
Inquire into and pass upon the question
privilege without first iu0ujring into and
sing upon the validity or The correctness
the claim secured by that privilege.
wever great ny respect be Tor tho au- j
rlty OF those decisions, The doctrine ! T.
rein enunciated ia. think. ialiaev. :,
{ doctrine had never before nor has it y
T since those decisions been sanctioned Of
our jurisrrudenee. "a lbs cases OF
lander w. Nicholas. wherein tLa cron
been Professionally SCI "a rT an :,
Iseer il satisfaction 81 his priyi. y
"a claim against his elaplovar
liciliated il The parish Of s. JAMES. the al
rene Court uses the following language: 81