New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-01-19
NEW ORLEANS REPUBLICAN, TUESDAY JANUARY 10, 1875

bI6CblOQ BQGE6 YVES u ubuSlB IN his HG- 4
counts of $1,000 65. This suit is instituted |
| against the succession of John Armstrong |
| as liable for this deficit. The defense is |
| that no amount was stipulated in the bond; |
| the defalcation occurred after his re-elec- |
| ton; also the object in stating an amount |
in bond is to definitely fix the liability of |
sureties. But man may bind himself in |
definitely if he chooses. Armstrong did |
| this, and bound Campbell that at the ex- |
| piration of his term he should give true |
account of all moneys, goods or chattels |
which came into his possession as secretary |
| and treasurer. There was no specified |
| term of Office or limit to the bond. Judg- |
ment is therefore affirmed.
No. 543l. Henry Samory VS.. Widow |
Samuel NJ. MontgOmery.-FrOm Second |
District Court 1t is ordered that judg- |
ment appealed from be avoided, annulled |
and erased, and there be judgment IN favor
| of the defendant, with costs in both courts. |
| No. 543j. City of New Orleans vs.. John
| A. Morris.-FrOm Superior District Court
| 1t is ordered that writ of certiori issue to
| the clerk of the Superior District Court,
/ directing him to attach to the record in this
| case the two writs of tieri facias mentioned
in the writ heretofore issued at the instance
of appellants.
BY JUSTICE wYLY.
No 5402. State ex rel w. w. Howe VS..
| Charles Clinton, Auditor, State of Louis
| lana INSTRUMENTATION Superior District
| Court. The relator appeals from judgment
| refusing to render peremptOry the man
damas sued out by him to compel the Audi
tor to issue to bin warrant for $1,000, pur-
suant to an appropriation in the second
section of act No. SO of the acts of 1874.
| The State interviewed and opposed the
| issuing of the warrant, on the ground that
it violates article ia of the cOnstitu
ton, because it is not covered by the title,
| and also that it violates the amendment of
| tba constitution liUnirinu the State debit IN
$25,000000. Both objections appear fatal
to Ielator. 1t was not an appropriation "fOr
the general expenses of the State for the
year ending December 81, 1874" 1t was
merely debt recognized by the Auditor as
due, in his report of January /, 1874. By
the Auditors report of that date the total
contingent liabilities of the State were
$29,99I,7 1872; deduct from this the total
amount of delinquent taxes, estimated at
100000, and the contingent liabilities
will be found to exceed S25,O0O,O00. Judg-
ment is, therefore, affirmed.
No. 5460. Alfred Delavyne VS., the Beau
ieu Brick Manufacturing Company.-From
Sixth District Court. The appeal was
evidently taken for delay Judgment
affirmed with ten per cent damages as
prayed for.
No. 1925. Henry Lectie VS.. R. L. Preston.
From Fourth District Court. Appeal
from Judgment for $1,000 on a bill of
exchange accepted by defendant. Judg-
ment is affirmed with ten per cent damages
as prayed for
No. 4O34. Cohen g. Wilson We. William
Golding ct al.-From Fifth District Court
Defendants, sureties of George w, Avery,
late sheriff of the parish of Orleans, appeal
from the Judgment against them for S94l 30
the amount adjudged against their principal;
for illegally releasing the seizure pending an
Injunction in case No. 1898, Fifth District
Court. Defense is prescription of two
d. k,A1
1t is true the defendants were not sued
within two years, but their principal was,
. and this interrupted prescription as to
them. Judicial pursuit as to the principal
interrupts prescription as to the surety, and
suit against the surety interrupts it as to
the principal. Mellem VS.. Scott 9 A. ia;
| Ferguson VS.. Glaze, II A, COZ; A, 9l6,
$40; A., 55l; IA A., l44; Revised Code
2097, 1858. judgment affirmed. Justice
, Morgan dissenting.
No. 1926. Owen w. Fluker, appellant vs..
Amos Kent, appellee.-From the Sixth
District Court, parish of TanglpahOa. The
Judgment in favor of the defendant is an
nulied, and that the plaintiff recover judg-
ment against the defendant for Sl9Jl Is
| with legal interest from January :, 1860,
and costs of both courts.
a No. 1856. Pierre NOgue VS.. Marcelin
. Fonteneau.-From Seventh District Court.
/ Plaintiff employed defendant January !,
: | lolU, 10 cultivate d bLldll lI6OG VI SLOuhAi
' embracing about twenty acres, in vege
. tables and rice, with the understanding that
/ plaintiff should have twO-thirds and de-
: PENDANT one-third of the crop, each to fur
= nish seed in proportion. On June IL, 1870,
. | plaintiff brought suit to annul contract, be-
cause defendant failed to furnish the por
. ton of seed stipulated; he permitted foul
, persons to occupy the room furnished, IL
4 violation of contract STIMULATING two-him
self and wife; and he failed to work and
cultivate the crop properly, result
I ing in loss to petitioner Plaintlh
subsequently, se1uesteTed the crops.
| Defendant claimed in reconventiOn Sll3S,
the value OF his share of the crop, and SOU
f damages. The court dissolved the contract
), from date of suit, maintained the seques
: tratiOn, gave plaintiff the crops, and con
demned him to pay defendant $50 as thu
?, value of his interest therein. Detendan
- was also condemned TO pay costs. From
+. this he appealed. There was not suficien
evidence to annul the contract. The per
|, hitting of other persons to occupy tn
q room was NO. violation of an essential con
i, dition, and defendant had ample means T.
4 prevent an invasion of his rights. Evl
4 dence as to working the crop is conflicting
,. as it is also in reference to its value; but
T. | after examination, we fix the value of de
?, tendant's interest at $3.50. Judgment is
a therefore, annulled, and it is decreed tina
= the defendant recover $50, with legal in
terest thereon from June 81, 1870, and cost
of both courts.
No. 1881. Mrs. A. Dockham and husband
y VS.. lothian Potter.-FrOm Fifth Distric
s. Court.-On May IL, 1866, Mrs. JOsephin
3. Laooste sued out an order of seizure an
X sale on the mortgage note OF the pla1ntli
: for $4,000, which was subsequently changed
to proceeding ria OrdiHGrtd. On June =
s. 1866 Judgment was rendered for the amour
I. of the note, with recognition OF the morl
20 gage, and stay of execution till November
(. 1866, on the confession of judgment signe
s. by p. S. Nugent, father OF the plaintiff, a
( her attorney in fact, and also on the wrltte
9 consent signed by Frank Hayne, attorne
q for defendants. After the stay of execution
it had elapsed, and the delay caused by in
is iuction, which was dissolved the mortgage
10 property was sold to the defendant
a, who had previously become the owner of tn
81 Judgment and regularly subrogated to tn
u rights of plaintiffs therein. Plaintiff nov
g. sues to annul judgment, set aside the sal
a. Hereunder, and recover the property Of
y the ground that said Judgment and sal
70 were absolutely null and void, on tn
N grounds l. That petitioner was then and
s. now a married woman residing in Cahtol
d MIA; she had no legal representative il
e Louisiana, and no one legally authorized Il
u represent her in court; that she was no
Y, cited. 3 That the advertisement unde
., which the property was sold was erroneou
in describing dimensions of lot No. !, there
II by misleading appraisers in fixing Its value
The court gave Judgment to plaintiff, an
l, the defendant appeal.,,i. The marriage Q
IS plaintiff previous 20 the suit vacated th
o. authority Conferred in the cOntract exc
IaFln llH4t haa UT