New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-01-10

the fourth instant:
BY JUSTICE TALIAFERRO.
No. 2638. Dennis Cronan, appellant, We.
Edward Cochran ct al.-Appeal from the
seventh District Court of Orleans Suit to
recover lot of ground with buildings and
improvements thereon. Defendant AYERS
that he bought the property IN question
from Mrs. Julie Zoe, June IA, 1864, and has
been in continuous possession ever since.
By way of reconvention defendant alleges
the Judgment under which plaintiff sets up
title to be null and void and without effect.
Judgment was rendered in his favor, and
defendant appeals. Defendants have been
successful in showing the nullity of the
Judgment set up as the basis of Crenan's
title. An actual taking into possession of
the property is essential to a seizure. An
adjudication under an illegal OF insufficient
seizure conveys no title. IL An, 76l; IL
An, 275. Judgment of lower court affirmed
with costs.
No, 2738. Caher, Simonds g. Co. VS.. Il. j.
LeOvy ct al, appellants. Appeal from
Sixth District Court of Orleans. Plaintiff
obtained Judgment in solidO against the
Delta Newspaper Company as maker, and
LeOvy g. Duncan as lndOrsers of a promis-
sorry note. Defendants appealed. This
court reversed the Judgment, dismissed the
suit against the Delta Newspaper Company
and condemned LeOvy & Duncan Jointly
each for his virile share. Execution was
issued and returned nllld bona. Proceed
ings were then taken against the surety on
the appeal bond, Barnett b. Hart. On the
second of December, 1869, another rule was
taken against Hart, as surety, to render
him liable. ..-
The rule was dismissed, and plaintiffs
have appealed. Surety's liability is pre-
cisely that of principal. Tho conditions of
the bond in this case are those required by
law, and the defense is more specious than
Weighty. 1t is ordered that the Judgment
appealed from be annulled and reversed,
and the rule is made absolute; that plain
tiffs recover from Hart, as surety, the
amount of Judgment, interest and costs OBJ
tanned BY them against Duncan & LeOvy,
and costs.
No, 2636. Armand ROugieux VS.. Leon
Voitier, and Leon Voitier VS.. Armand ROu-
gleux.-Appeal from Sixth District Court
OF Orleans. Rougieux alleges that in Oe.o.
Der, 1866, he loaned Voitier $500, and that
he received only $l07 in payment. He brings
suit for the difference and interest. The an
swer denies any Indebtedness, and sets up
q unconventional demand Of $455 IS, alleged
to be cash lent and merchandise sold to
plaintiff. Judgment was rendered in favor
of plaintiff, and defendant appealed. In
July, defendant instituted action to annul
this Judgment, and took out an injunction
to stay its execution. Judgment was rem
dered against hun, and the injunction dis
solved, with damages. VOitier appealed,
and the two cases were consolidated.
VOitier fatty cOntradicts the statements of
the two most important witnesses intro
duced by RougIeux, and charges that their
testimony was procured by the latter
through subornation Of perjury. The char
acter Of these witnesses for veracity is
established. Judgment Of the lower court
approved, with costs.
No. 1898. David Wagner VS.. city of New
Orleans.-FrOm Eighth District Court. The
appeal in this case is dismissed, because the
judgment from which the appeal is taken
does not seem to have been signed by the
Judge of the court quo.
No. 1886. II. G. Mahan VS.. A. Dubuolet ct
al.-From Eighth District Court Plaintiff
brought suit to recover from defendants
possession of two warrants, each for the
sum Of 1888, issued by Auditor Wickliffe in
1869. The warrants were eequestefed under
bond, but Messrs. Hernandez and Frizzle
intervened, claiming ownership Of the war
ranfa. Judgment was rendered in favor Of
defendants and plaintiff appealed. Plain
tiff in December 1869, gave Wicklihe pos
session Of the warrants to exhibit before q
Legislative committee, and accepted 8 re-
ceapt therefor. Soon after Wiekiitfe disap-
peared, and all trace Of warrants was lost
until presented for payment at the State
Treasurer's Office. No advertisement or
notice of loss was given by plaintiff. De.
feudants received them in due course OF
trade. Where innocent pcrHone suffer from
misconduct Of third party the loss should
fall upon him who placed Il in the power OF
that party to infict the injury Judgment
No. 1887. Andrew B. Miller vs. D. w
handicapped from the Fourth Dis
triet Court, parish Of Orleans. Judgment
affirmed. r taF
No. 1902 Marcelin LatOix ". Germans
Insurance Company Appeal from Seventh
District Court, parish Of Orlaang. Whert
policy Of insurance e issued without pre-
payment Of the premium the inference il
that che insurers Intended TO extend eredi
for ila payment. 1t was not within the
option u the company to cancel the policy
Iha contract could have been dissolved FOL
nonpa4l nant Of the premium upon putting
the other party IA mora. The party badef
who applied at tho request OF plamtin i0l
renewal g tee policy, me preyls9ns !. On.
ths agent e. plfintiG Judgment Of ths
court q fits reduced from 9l400 TO 4lt62
with legal interest Costs to be PAID y
uartiaa IA interest,"
sc. s0le Eelix Rordeaave -, the city q
New oEieRnA, eppelIolt.--Apre0l IRON
Sixth District Genft ~ Orleans 6alt 20
r,7re4 oI fardaH1 Is diving 70 pubhf
pound foEf head 81 L1ileA cows which
I1 d zlom e66fhcneal n1it Do
pfIVe1qn 81 food and water re ccn1Ie
II &-1 UIlI Ic1 t41<1 n E4uq lot1nl end
ssuo alrA4 4Ea ltiFiti nigs'11 N1le -
F'I h l44H te1at .zll re- 'n1s1 s.
daring Inaf lf11 rialn|t4 may heff t14
Nfsk feN sl.44.aa
M ~ sa4 tt4 ~ f|'z..1
Iadrat1t log fSadatt n..n5f rayln'
s htl4 a1Qztt
M 800 nSsrSff ii fa ~