New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-03-12
COURT RECORD.
THURSDAY, MARCH IL, 1915.
Superior District Court.

death of plaintiffs husband, killed by his
wagon being run into by the alleged negli
gence of defendants empoye. On trial,
| with a jury.
John Anderson vs.. city of New Orleans
Petition for annullment OF sale Tor BON
payment of taxes, alleging proper applica-
tlon for excessive assessment, amounting to
appropriation.
Metropolitan Loan and Savings Institu-
ton vs. j. H. Hopkins and Sampson Broth
ers.-Petition for judgment on note Of $25OO.
B. G. Peters vs. Lafayette Bank.-Peti-
toner alleges a subscription OF $1,000 for
twenty shares of defendants stock; that he
holds certificate to that effect; that he is
entitled to a dividend OF Sf50, and prays
for judgment of $ll50.
Armand Duplessis VS.. Atlas Insurance
| C0mpany.-Peiitioner alleges ownership of
stock which he fears will be rendered val
ueess by the acts of the company, and
prays that a writ of sequestration issue;
that q receiver be appointed and the officers
OF the company be restrained from interfer-
ing with him. Writs issued according to
prayer and L. L. Murdock appointed re-
| ceiver.
Superior Criminal Court.
| NFoRMArIoNs.
| Burglary and grand larceny - Robert
! Arthur.
Breaking and entering saop-Thomas
| Hubbard.
Carrying concealed weapons-Joe Jones.
ON TRIAL.
| State va. Roman armogeuet.-Murder
The prisoner is charged with killing Jean
Lazare, September 49, 1874, at the corEer of
St. Philip aud Weite streets, at q Gasc0n
wedding, by shooting at negro and hitting
Lazare.
First District Court.
NOLLE PRosEQUI ENTERED.
RE. Thomas, petty larceny.
ACQUITTED,
J. H, Gray, petty larceny.
CONVICTED.
Petty larceny-Charles Moore Charles
johnson, James SOmmers.
Entering, etc.-William Smith, alias
Harris.
Assault and battery-Frank Butler, alias
MahOney.
Assault with intent to rob and murder
John Shiller, John Weiss.
Second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS of Mary alters, wife of
Henry L. Simons. Tomas, Elena aud Lau-
reana Guiterez opened.
Fifth District Court.
Judge CuIlom rendered the following de-
cisiOh:
Henry Legendre vs.. Fl. Van Nordeu.-
There was judgment in this case, signed
February ), from which defendant appeal
ed, giving his bond on the seventeenth dav
of February, A. ID. 1879. The plaintiff now
moves the court to set aside the appeal on
the grounds, first, that defendants have
not < ven bond according to law; second,
that the surety thereon was without au-
nv IN nht.
third, that the surety is not such as the law
requires. 1t Is unnecessary to pass upon
the second ground set up.
AS to the first, article 575 Of the Code of
Practice provides 'that parties may appeal
within ten days.. not including Sundays"
etc. No longer delay was necessary in this
case, as all the parties were present. 1t is.
however, inmaterial to dwell upon this
point, as the motion is made to turn entirely
on the third ground. E. c. Palmer says
that M. S. Cox, who signed the ap.
peal bond for him, held bis general
and special power OF attorney. though
it may not cover the right to sign
for him as surety. He says: Il, however,
ratify and confirm his act in the premises
and adopt the signature CT my name made
by him as if made by me. i bad already
myself signed like bond to be filed in the
suit, which had been mislaid Twas absent
from the State when it became necessary,
from lapse of time, that the bond should be |
filed"
This act of ratification was sworn toaud
subscribed on the fifth of March, 1875, che |
month after the Judgment was signed.
Does this ratification cure the want of |
authority in the agent Cox to sign the ap- !
peal bond If the bond was not rendered |
and filed within the time prescribed by law |
the right Of plaintiff to enforce his iudg- |
ment became fully vested. That right |
would not be subsequently divested by |
signing. Such a bond could not have
retroactive etfect and give validity to an
obligation which had no legal existence, 80
as to affect or suspend the right of the
Judgment creditor. Such principle. if |
adopted by the courts, light lead TO abuses
and great hardships, for it is plain that
until the Judgment debtor approves and
ratities the act of the oatensibie agent who
to sign for him, he is in
nowiso bound by the. signature, and it
follows that il he would not be bound
the Judgment creditor should not be. This
ia nothing more nor less than common
sense and reciprocal justice. Ii, from the
seventeenth OF February to the fifth of
March Palmer could have receded from the
obligation Of the appeal bond. on what
principle of law or equity could Legendre
nave been forced to accept it9 1t, therefore,
to nothing, SO far as is pretended
{ operated as suspension of the execution |
If the judgment The ratification can not
because Legendre's right to
he execution of his judgment has vested in
he interim. The principle here Involved
vas announced in James Reed ct. ais. vs..
Thomas Powell, ii r., SO, by Associate JUS
ice Morphy. "A ratification by the di-
ectors, OF the acts of a cashier, who had |
rOted at a meeting of creditors, without
authority, made after the proceedings be-
ore the notary were closed, and the ten |
lays had expired. after which the rights Of
he parties claiming a syndicship became
ixed, can not affect rights previously ac-
uired." c. G., 1895. 2272. "Qu' importe 1
ncore que le citOven Lafarre ait rattle
ar cote sisnite cest-a-dir4 apres
expiration des trois -mois. Iappel que
. citoyen Ranchin await ennis en- son nom
9 quinze brumaire? II est bien vrai que
QUITE ratification a un effet retroactif
acte qu'elle confrme. 'Oninis ratihabitio
ctrOtrahitur dd initiune ct mandate COM
aratur.' Mais regle cesse tOutes les fois
nil s'agit dun interet dun tier; jamais ,
ne ratification ne peut depouiller un tier
u droit qui lui est acquis par 10 laps de
amps dams leguel aurait du etre fait 6
alsblement facte Gu'elle pour objet, ct I
III Sc trOuve nul pour n'avoir pas etc dams
, delai tixe par la loi." Merlin, Questions |
Q Drolt, tome |, PIP. SIS, 5l3. That author 9
this question at much greater
'ngth than | deem it necessary to quote.
IN rejection am convinced the doctrine
o lays down is sound and equitable for the
easOns already given. The rule must, there-
,re, be made absolute.