New Orleans Republican., 1875-11-16
COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER Is, 1875.

oTDaAs NV EMbEh lof
Supreme Court.
Present-All the judges.
The following opinions were read:
By CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELING.
No. 527S. City of New Orleans vs.. Louis R,
Roudanez, appellant.-From Superior Dis
trict Court Judgment affirmed. See New
Orleans We. Klein, 26 A., 493; same vs.
Berthe. 26 A, 497; same VS.. Kerr, 26 A., 49I.
No. $685.. Miss C. P. E. K. de la Ferrlere vs..
succession of Richard England, appellant.
From Second District Court. The minor
heirs having been put in possession, the
Probate Court had no jurisdiction, % A., 90:
% A., 225. 220; &c A., 81. The suit must be
brought before the ordinary tribunals, C.
+. 996. Judgment set aside and suit dis
missed.
No. 5476 Jean Bascon vs.. w. P. Harper,
sheriff, ct als., appellant. From the Fifth
District Court.-Plaintiff bought and had
possession of the furniture when seized.
Judgment affirmed.
BY JUSTICE TAL1AFERRo.
No. 1857. State ex. rel. Mary L. Harp We.
Judge OF the Second District Court.-This
less than five hundred dollars. Rule dis.
charged
No. 4i53. Heirs of John Slidell vs. Jane
NJ. Burchardt ct al. appellant. From the
Fourth District Court The defence ia un-
availing., See same VS.. Huppenbauer
Opinion Book, 563. Judgment affirmed.
No. 5Si5. State ex rel. Mrs. De St. Romes
Vs. Judge of Superior District Court.-The
bond was good for devolutive appeal
only. Writ discharged.
NO. 5S2O. State ex rel. James Wood vs..
Judge of Fifth District Court.-The court
refused to appoint either partner liou'dator
on a suit for dissolution, but appointed
third party, and did not proceed with the
case on the objection of the other partner,
Allen, that his appeal from the order of
appointment should be first determined.
The judgment should have been proceeded
with. Rule made absolute.
No. 1898. State ex rel. Ernest D'Aquin VS..
judge OF the Sixth District Court.-The
Judge had the right to determine what are
strong reasons to deprive father of his
child, and we think he has properly exer-
cised the discretion vested in him. Writs
discharged.
No. 5ll6. City of New Orleans Va. Widow
): c. de 81. Romes, appellant.-From Supe-
rior District Court See No 52s5, same vs.
Roudanez. Judgment affirmed.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 5429. Mechanics and Traders Bank
vs. Jesse r Powell; J. E. Zunts ct al, third
opponents and appellants.-It was not the
intention OF Powell to extinguish the mort
gage securing the payment of the four
months notes which Low & Ludwgsen ad-
vaAced money on to pay the original cred
itor. Subsequent transfers do not effect
their right to stand in his place and pledg.
ing in the mortgage to plaintiff does not
alter II. The claims OF opponents are sub
sequent to the mortgage, Judgment at
firmed.
No. 5i99. Succession of Thomas H. Pat.
terson. From Second Distric. Court
Judgment amended by striking out Si5s3 33
for liquidstors salary and reducing his
ceeds of sales to be left for future account.
No. 5l33. City of New Orleans vs.. Hugh
Cassidy, appellant. From Superior District
COurt.-A suit for taxes is summary. and
refusal OF jury was correct. c. p. 156, 7J7;
~ A, 81, Judgment affirmed
No. 5SO3. Same VS.. Metropolitan Loan
and Savings Bank, appellant. Supe.
Peoples Bank. The record does not con-
tain proof. The property is that Of indivi-
dua,s. Judgment affirmed.
No. 1881. State VS.. P. Gourgette vs.. Judge
of the Sixth District Court.-The bond was
sufficient. Prohibition made perpetual.
BY JUSTICE wYLY.
No. ASA. Henry Talmadge vs, John Will
liains Il Sons, appellauts.-From Sixth Dis
trct Court On letter authorizing drafts
from Fisk and Butler and promising ac-
ceptance for $4,000. They drew to their own
order, and discounted with plaintiffs on the
faith OF the letter. Three thousand tive hun
dred dollars was accepted and paid; $500
was dishonOred. The defense, the drafts do
not correspond with the letter is too tech
meal. 1t is immaterial whether they we're
drawn in favor of creditors or themselves.
By accepting the titst the defendants con-
ceded there was no objection TO the word
ing. Judgment affirmed.
Justice Howell disSeuts.
No. 5S0l. City of New Orleans VS.. Peo-
ple's Bank, appellant.-From Superior Dis
trict Court The bank, incorporated De-
cember, 1869, under act OF March 10, 1855,
is not exempt from taxation by act of 1867,
as that is repugnant to article J Is of the
constitution of 1868. The capital of the
bank ia it's property, and liable to taxation
which must be equal and uniform on all
property. Charter of 1870 sec. l2. Judg-
ment affirmed.
No. 576l. Same appellant vs. Mechanics
and Traders Bank:-From Superior Dis.
trict Court. Final Judgment for taxes No
vember II, 1874, for &6S00. Fieri facias is
sued March 20. 1875, Rule to reduce assess.
ment taken March %, 1875, and made abso-
lutte. The final judgment has never been
reversed according to the Code of Practice
and is practically reOpened four months af-
ter being rendered The tax was merged
in the judgment, which can not be dis
turbed except as provided by the Code.
Judgment annulleu
No. 5l23. Same VS., estate OF d. +. Burthe,
appellant From Superior District Court
See No, 527s, same We. Roudanez. Judg
ment affirmed.
Nos. 1923 and 5s32. State ex rel. John G.
Eustis VS.. Judge OF Fourth District Court
The bond of $500 seems sufficient Rela,or
not being in UOSsessiOn. ia only resDonsible
for costs. 10 A., 3i5; 20 A, los The appeal
operated as supersedeas. c. p, SIS. Man,
damus made peremptory.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. 5S27. State ex. rel. Pontehartrain
Railroad Company vs.. Judge of Superior
District Court.-March %, 1875, there was
judgment for Ellen Murray Vs. defendant for
0,500. March &c, the time for appeal, by
agreement, was extended sixty days, and
granted March 80. March 25, an appeal
was allowed on bond Of $4,000. March 90,
plaintiff moved to set aside appeal. 1t was
set aside on the grounds that the security
was insufficient, and the time being fixed
by law could not be extended. 1t is no OBJ
sonal. as he is solvent to the amount of
So, 900. c. P. SIS. The law requiring sus-
pensive appeal ip ten days is general, State
vs.. Buchanan, l3 A., 576. C. P. 575, is not
prohibitory. Any agreement may be en-
forced between the parties. fhe Judge has
the power of pronouncing whether the ap
peal shall be suspensive or devOlutive,
Stanton VS.. Parker, 2 r 55l, but this court
may reform the judgment on one, or the
suthciency of surety, Il A., IFS. See
State VS.. Judge of the Fourth District
%. A party may consent that the party
a randarad