New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-02-09
COUNT RECORD.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1875.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1875.
Supreme Court.
REHEAKING REFUSED.
No. 37l3. Daniel Soully W.. Canal and
Claiborne Street Railroad Company.
| By JUsr1cERALIAFERRos
| No. 5l5l. City of New Orleans vs. Pierre
Cazelsr.-From the Superior District Court
The city claimed taxes to the amount OF
S405 of defendant, and he refused to pay on
act of the Legislature. approved March 10,
1870, extending the limits of Orleans par.
ish, and the amendatory act approved
March 49, 1871, upon which the city bases
its right to tax his property, in SO far as it
empowers the setting up OF the tax against
him is unconstitutional and void. Judg-
Aent was given defendant and plaintiff ap-
pesled. Plaintiff owning vacant lots and
rural property within city boundary. com
planned that his was not uniform
tax, and divestiture of vested rights
without compensation, in violation of the
constitutions Of the State and United
States. Cities may extend their bounda-
ries as convenience may require, and may
include rural districts. Taxation must be
equal and uniform. The ascertainment of
the standard of valuation on which to base
l
advantages to rural estates brought within
city limits is coDjectured and never settled
by q concurrence of opinion. The Legisia,
ture can not authorize other than uniform
tax. 1T can not, after including property
within corporation, declaring its opinion
that such property should contribute to the
local government, immediately turn about
and establish basis of taxation which as
sumes that it is not in fact urban prop.
erty at all, but is agricultural land, and
should be assessed accordingly" COOley's
| Cons Linn. It is ordered that the jndg-
meut be annulled and reversed. and plain
| tiff recover $405, the amount of tax sued
! for, with ten per cent interest from July 81,
1873, until paid with costs of suit.
No. 55l4.s W. G. Wilmot e. Co. ct al
vs. the city of New Orleans.-From Superior
District Court. Plaintiffs. extensive dealers
in coal, complained of being harrassed by
vexatious and illegal suits instituted against
them by the city before Justice of the
peace for the purpose of compelling them to
pay illegal exactions, called ''levee Dues"
for landing and mooring their coal boats
along the shore of the river above the limits
of the city Of Jefferson, where there are no
wharves or facilities of any kind provided
by the city of New Orleans for the land.
ing and unloading OF vessels of any kind.
Plaintiffs applied to the Superior District
for writ of INDUCTION restraining the city
from enforcing the collection of any such
dues, and the second justice of the
peace, w. l.. Evans, from proceeding in
certain specified cases on his court
docket. Writs were issued as prayed for
and the city attorney filed the exception
that the petition disclosed no cause of ac-
ton; the court was without jurisdiction to
issue the Injunction, and AYERS the right to
collect dues sued for, and asked for dis |
solution of the injunction, with damages. |
There was Judgment for plaintiff, and de- |
PENDANT appealed. The exception was we'll |
taken. Judgment annulled and reversed. |
Injunction dissOl yed, and the case dismissed |
at plaintiffs cost.
No. 537l. Succession of John TrainOr and |
Mary Kerney, his wife.-On rule to compel |
purchaser to comply with terms of sale. |
From Second District Court. Judgment |
for defendant affirmed, with costs.
By JUSTICE wYLY.
No. 1890. Payne & Harrison Va. Mrs. II. |
A. Stackhouse.-From Fourth District |
Court. Defendant appeals from Judgment !
plaintiffs against the Barstaria plantation,
alleged to belong to her. This plantation |
belonged to j. W. Rose, first husband of |
defendant; plaintiffs, creditors for 1885, -,
bought said property in the name of j. HI. |
Payne, copartner. at the request of the
widow; title was simply taken as security |
to be transferred to Widow Ross, as soon as
operations were not successful.
and the debt increased; and when title was
to William Stackhouse, now her
a larger debt was established. for
supplies, etc. The court was not satisfied
with the evidence of liability of defendant
based on her alleged assumption to pay the
debt of deceased husband, and struck out
the amount, rendering judgment against her
for the amount Of advances. Judgment
affirmed.
No. $3.50. E. w. Burbank VS.. C.. A. 81.
l.. Conrad.-From Fifth District Court.
Plaintiff purchased an undivided half OF a
and lot, on Julia street, at
United States marshals sale, under a writ
Of cenditioni e1pOn0s, issued by the United .
States District Court, in the confscation
of the United States vs.. ten
lots Of ground, alleged to be the property
IF Charles NJ. Conrad: he brought cult
against defendants, owners OF the other
halt, for partition, alleging that said
property can not be divided in kind, with |
)ut deterioration OF value; he pravs for
partition by lcitatiOn. The court rendered !
Judgment prayed for and defendants ap.
,ealed. Interesting questions are pre-
ented. Assuming the sale to have been |
correctly made, did the estate acquired
'OAlCI tuc IlSuU " uGUduu VI uoIcUudltS !
! partition by licitatiOn, or in other words, I i
o demand of cO-prOprietors the sale of a
hing held IN common and division of the
proceeds? The most important question is,
lid the decree and sale convey any title to |
'laintiff whatever, in view Of the fact that
rior to confiscatiou proceedings and the
ct Of Congress of July II, 1862, authorizing :
t, Charles NJ. Conrad conveyed and 9
nd sold it to defendants, the deed being ! ;
egistered in the parish of St. Mary and not =
4 the parish OF Orleans until long after con- /;
scati0n and sales The act of july II, 1872. =
7as not intended to cOnfscate property of r
ebels generally, but was expressly confined i
o classes mentioned in the fifth and Other h
ections As Conrad was an offender of the | i
lass named, the statute authorized the con-
scatiOn of his property, or the condemna- 4
fe: BigelOw vs.. Forest, Wallace, 3E. By g
1e decree of condemnation February 8, f
365, only such right or title as Conrad had 4
as conveyed. But Conrad had no title, a
aving sold it by notarial act June ,. 1862, a
| St Mary parish, prior to the confiscation
1t itself When the law was brought to
ear on Conrad, it was to punish an Otfense
subsequent to the enactment | A
lereof, and the penalty was to vest in the q
nited States the property of the offender {
lring the period of his life. The confisca- il
on of the property in question was not | a
tended by the law. for it could indict no Il
luishment on Conrad, because he had ii
Id it to Defendants; and as between a.
10 parties without registry, the sale was al
,rtect from the time of it's execution, X. se
1856. The position Of the United States h
az not that OF third party. The failure tt
defendants to register their title sub IL
cted them to the risk of losing it, if seized b
creditor of the vendor, or if sold or W
pOthecated by him toan innocent third I'll
lrty. But the title was, nevertheless, in o,
EN- from the time of sale, and neither the CT
ndor nor his heirs could recover it from ca
EN-. 1t was immaterial to the United | re
IL i Il