New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-02-09

lif's demand is rejected. and defendant
| have valid title to and be put in posses
SION of the property. Plaintiff to pay cost
of both courta.
| No. 524. Georgiana Whan vs. Jesse 4
| Irwin, tutor, ct al.-From Fourth Distric
| OF an order of seizure and sale, simply If
wolves the question of the responsibility 9
surety, who can not De liable until a
legal means are exhausted against tn
! principal.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 1867. J. F. Wild va. A. Erath.-Fror
Seventh District Court. This suit to effec
the settlement OF partnership whIcl
existed between the parties, and whethe
or not plaintiff is responsible for tire
| notes made by defendant to his own orde
and used as capital in establishing tn
partnership. The parties purchased a larg
brewery from Fasnacht Brothers to
100000. one fourth cash, the balance
in monthly installments. evidenced
by notes of defendant to hi
own order and secured by property
mortgage Not able to make the cash pay
,neut, vendors agreed to take notes OF The
purchasers Endorsed by their friends. Wild
furnished one of IL, 500 Endorsed by Kicker
and the defendant; Erath three. two fol
$4,000 each and one for $4,000. Four years
after defendant proposed a dissolution Of
partnership on conditions that plaintiff
assume all the debts of the partnership
partners release all claims against each
other: plaintiff to discharge defendant
from outstanding notes bearing the firm
signature, and tor the purchase plaintiff
accepted and took possession. A notacial
act was subsequently drawn and presented,
according to these terms, but defendant re.
fused to sign. The three notes not bearing
the signature of the firm, not specially
mentioned, and those given by Erath alone
for the purchase of the property are not
included in the settlement; they simply
represented cash capital defendant should
have put in and are his individual debt.
1t was the debt of the firm plaintiff was to
assume. Notes given for the price OF the
property were made firm debt by the
act of partnership. Judgment reversed
Judgment in favor of plaintiff Diminishing
defendants claim in recSnvention and con-
demning him to perform the contract of
transfer and dissolution according to its
true intent and spirit. and to pay all costs.
No. 55lS. George Pierre VS.. Josephine
Strobel.-From Sixth District Court APP
peal from an order Of seizure and sale made
for delay. Judgment affirmed, with ton
per cent damages and costs.
No. 1923. Mrs. NJ. Mulvey vs. II. Bird
From Fifth District Court. Suit on note
of 5000 in gold. Judgment for plaintiff
affirmed.
No. 1867. James Ready ct al. vs.. city of
New Orleans ct al.-FrOm Eighth District
Court. The question presented is whether
it is necessary for one-fOurth of the front
on the whole length of street
to be improved, or only those on the Dor
ton sought to be improved, to petition
the Council for this purpose. This was
settled in the case of Daniel ct al. vs. city
Of New Orleans ct al, 26 A., l. Judgment
for defendants was correct and is affirmed.
No. 4O37. II. Eden VS.. +. Lemandre ct al
Fourth District Court Plaintiff sued to
recover penalties stipulated in two charter
vessels to defendants to carry cargoes of
fruit, or money to purchase the same;
freight was to be paid part in advance and
The balance on arrival in New Orleans.
Penalty in case of one vessel was $50; of
the other 500. Defendants bound them
selves jointly and IN sOlido. When ready
for fourth cargo the captain of the brig
Ruatan placed them in default by a written
demand; as to the other vessel, legal modes
were not observed according to article 1911
R. C. C.. No. 9. until the date of expiration
If the charter, when it was impossible for
Tho vessel to make voyage. Judgment
defendants $3.50, with interest from June,
81, and costa.
No. 5462. j. 7. Michel We. z. Meyer ct
Fifth District Court. Plaintiff
,njoned an order of seizure and sale on the
grounds: l. The creditor had
,iven an extension. and was to receive
rents il consideration. 9. That
,ut of the rents creditor was to pay insur-
NICE premium, which she failed to do. 3.
The property is improperly described 10 adj
Iertisement. Lower court found that the
expired before the writ issued
md had Not been renewed, but defendant
lad received $50 rents, for which no credit
vas given, and it perpetuated the Injunction
IS to such sum, and dissolved it as to the
balance without damages. Plaintiff ap-
'ealed, and defendant asks that it be
mended by allowing the highest damages
nd dissolving the injunction in toto, be-
auss pending these proceedings a remit.
ance was entered in the execut0ry proceed
ogs. The judge quo did not err in dis
diving the Injunction, but damages were |
lie defendant. See IA A, $50; ) A. l25. 1t
ordered that judgment be amended by |
the plaintiff and his surety GU !
1junotion in s0lidO to pay defendant Y. |
leyer $500 damages and all costs of suit.
No. $3.50. j. Davidson Il Hill vs.. Thomas |
!. BodIey.-From Second District Court. |
laintitts sue on note given defendant for |
ne-halt OF advances made in excess of |
hat was repaid, under a contract for rails
lg q stranded vessel. Judgment amended
ON $4,000 to $250l Is, with five per cent |
terest from March lS, 1872, and affirmed,
18th costs.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. 1909. Spalding We. City of Jefferson;
)hn Purdon Va. City of New Orleans
HI,
policemen. were, in discharge |
their duty, fired upon BY an armed body
men in the city of Jefferson, authorized
: its authorities, and seriously wounded.
hey claimed the city was responsible for
j uries inflicted. But we do not think the
ty is responsible for damages which may
suit to one OF its officers when in the
scharge of his duties. 1t is risk which
} runs when he accepts the position.
pigments affirmed.
No. $3.50. Blanchard & Perkins vs. La,Isin
Grisamore.-From Fifteenth Judicial
istrict, parish of Lafourche. Defendants
to erect sugar mill and engine
r plaintiffs, and were sued for $4,000
images because the work was defective,
d the crop could not be taken off. Jury
7arded $500 Judgment affirmed.
Fifth District Court.
loussdiut oduA Ns. 0eau OoPOu.F aOu |
exander Borde.-This suit is brought on
note and against the indOrsers.
,pouy paid the entire obligation, he hav- I
, signed with Borde as security, and his ;
swcr to petitioners demand says he paid |
3 entire note, and that as Borde was tie
at indorser he is entitled to Judgment :
ainst him in warranty. Depouy answers
d says that he and Borde signed % CO.
;urities. and that Borde owes him one {
If of $43l 20, exclusive Of costs, and for
9 sum he sets up Q unconventional do E
md, and prays for judgment accordingly. I
ride filed a motion to dismiss his cali in | t
rranty, and it was dismissed. Depouy, t
'ough his counsel, now claims Judgment {
his claim in reconventiOn. BOrde's |
lnsel objects, and contends that he 7
, not successfully reconvene OF
demand. There can be no |
L. &iat e Aaaaa,axz Do |