The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1875-07-23
SYLLABUS OF SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS.
CHIEF JUSTICE LppE11Sa,

at"CHJEF JUSTICE LUDELING.
Tpuy va. Faulk. reversed.
State VS.. Vallen.-Appeal dismissed, there
being no Judgment in the record.
Succession of Ravvls.-The widows priv
ilege of $1,000 is superior to all other privi-
1eges, except those of the vendors, and
those to secure the payment of expenses
incurred in selling property. Judgment
affirmed.
Davis VS.. Maddin.-Plea in reconvention
set up, and case remanded on that issue.
Mayor of Homer VS.. Merritt, ct. al
Sureties on tax collectors bond cannot
plead that taxes were illegally assessed.
Judgment affirmed.
State VS.. Tim Roth.-Appeal dismissed,
there being no Judgment
Succession Of Wamsley.-A third party
must show interest to be allowed to
appeal. appeal dismissed.
State OK rel. vs. Ed. Observation-Disclosures
for Recorder. Judgment for plaintiff,
versing the lower decree.
Ably d Catching vs. Brigham CURATOR
Question of prescription. Held-that the
Act of Congress of l1th juno, 1864, entitled
'An Act in relation to the limitation of
actions in certain cases" was valid and it
suspended the course of prescription as
between persons residing in the Federal
and Con Tolerate lines.
Kimbrough VS.. Walker & vaught, ct al
The amount of the demand gives jurisdic- |
tion-case remanded-Wyly dissenting.
JUSTICE TALIAFERRo.
Succession of Fl. b. Herring.-A third
party must show an interest to be allowed
to appeal. Appeal dismissed at costs of
appellant.
State VS.. Observation-Disclosures charges that
defendant did fe1oniousiy steal, take, and
carry away seventy-tive dollars in money!
&c. Held: the indictment is good-not
necessary to af1ege any particular kind of
money. Judgment affirmed.
Nelson vs.. ACKNOWLEDGMENT pro-
pounded to Earnishee in one suit will
sustain the plea of res judicata in n former
suit against the same defendant, to enforce
the same demand by different plaintiff.
Judgment reversed, at costs of plaintiff.
Alexander and husband Elton, Sill
bernag1e, Tu11y, Intervenors.-Furnishe rs
of supplies, to enforce their privilege on
the crop, must show that such supplies
were used for that purpose. Judgment
affirmed.
Alexander and husband VS.. silbernagel,
ct aI.-The Judge allowed intervenors to
bond property in Il sequestration suit. Helds
"there is no law authorizing intervenor
to release property under sequcstration by
furnishing bond" Judgment reversed.
Shultz VS.. Morgan.-Chatle, Interveuor.-
A sale cannot avail against an attaching
creditor where there has been no delivery.
Judgment affirmed.
Walker Il Vaught vs.. Electromagnetic
party cannot claim tho proceeds of a sale,
and attack the sale for utilities. Further:
Lands may be sold according to tho u S.
Surveys, or in lots according to such sur
vey. Judgment affirmed.
JUSTICE WHY.
Marx vs.. Miller.--Judgment affirmed.
Green VS.. King, Administratrix.-Judg-
ment affirmed.
Sandel vs.. Douglas, Sheriff, ct als.--The
seizing creditor and Sheriff liable for
seizing the property of IL third person to
satisfy tho fl ia issued in favor of the
creditor. Judgment affirmed.
Heard VS.. Patton.-Defendant's discharge
in bankruptcy does not remove the mort
gage placed on his lands.
Chaf1e, Shea Il Loye VS.. Rathbun.-Suit
for damages. Judgment for defendant
affirmed.
Sorrells VS.. Stamper.-Mortgage REIN
scribed against succession after ten years
from date of original inscription is void
Judgment affirmed.
State ex rel, VS.. Nates.--The Governor
has the right to remove tax collectors
Judgment for defendant restoring him to
Office.
Spears Spears. reversed
Judgment for plaintiff.
Willis vs.. Acknowledgements reversed
and Judgment for enfen,lant with 10 per
cent damages on principal and interest
epjoined.
tayne vs. Diitn.-iiaini i'll received q note
from ono Meyer, endorsed "without re-
course-'' 1leld-hc took il at his own risk
and the endorSrr is not liable because a f the
defense Of tontederato money successful
pleaded.
Spears vs.. Spnars.-Iudgmont Affirmed.
nnckw"rih vs.. Observation-Disclosures in
good faith need not look beyond the order
OF Court having Jurisdiction of tho strcces-
sion; further, lands need not be SURVEYED
and sold III lots nntler such survey when
they wore described according to the s,,r
Eey made by the y. =. Governments
Succession of Overly.-Casc remauaed
for new trial.
JUSTICE MORGAN
Citizens Bank vs.. Board of tiuuifntion
s'ale, intcrVen"r.-" Appeals from the
superior District Court OF New Orleans mr.,
re'nrnabic at New orieatts Consent
cannot give Jurisdiction; neither can CON-
sent chanSe the law which dosirnat,s tho
appeals al i,