New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-04-20
Co6Rr KIC0llD.
MONDAY, APRIL l9. 1875.


Supreme Court.
Present~Chief Justice Ludeling, ant
Justices TaliaferrO, Howell, WHY, ant
Morgan.
The following decisions were rendered:
BY CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELN1.
No. 2738. Calres, Simonds Il Co., appel
lants, VS.: II. j. Leovy ct al.-Frorn Sixth
District Court. Application Tor rehearin!
No. 1897. E. Newman etal. We. John Eatoz
ct ux, appellants.-From Seventh Distric
Court. To annul donation to wife, alleg
ing the husband .inso!vent. The donation
Was perfected by the marriage. The prop
erty was extra dotal. c. C. 1888, 1885
1919; A.. 1874. Judgment reversed.
No. 55S7 Charles e. After vs.. James E
Zuntz, appelant.-Fiom Fifth Distric,
Court. The term OF payment of the note
was prolonged for valuable consideration
The written act showed that ZuDtz wae
surety. c. c. 3l35; IA Louisiana, 500. The
renewal OF the note without the consent OF
the surety discharged him. c. c. 4O63
Judgment annulled.
No. 5735. State ex rel w. Van Norden
vs.. the Mayor and Administrators of the
city of New Orlt ans.-From the Superior
District Court. }. @. A. Fellows intervenor,
No 1875. Hays, Tunstall & Co. vs.. John
T. Michel. appellant.-Fr0m the Seventh
District Court. Judgment annulled and
judgment OF non suit rendered in favor OF
defendant
No. 4ll6. john Wharton VS.. Crescent
City Live Stock and S!aughterhouse Com
pany, appellants.-From the Sixth District
Court. Appeal dismissed by consent OF
parties.
No. 44o9. A. w.walker, appellant, VS.. c. s.
Sauvinet, shelif.-From the Fourth District
Court. The motion to dismiss appeal was too
late. 2 A. l3S; ii A. Glib. The plaintiff can not
avoid the responsibility of appointing an
appraiser. Judgment affirmed.
No. 5l72. White e. Tompkins We. Leuisi
ana Levee Company, appellant.-From Su-
perior District Court. Judgment annulled,
and judgment Diminishing plaintiffs de-
mand Tor the excess over S2749 81. confessed
by defendants.
No. 56s6. Schmidt & Z-igler VS.. Louise
B. WillistOn, wife of E. F. Dewing;
Alexander Thompson, third opponent
No. 5000. Mrs. Mary E Felters. appel
liant, vs.. Blanchin & Giraud ct al.-From
Second District. Appeal dismissed.
No. 5539 Eugene Rochereau & Co. VS.. II.
Octave ColOmb ct al; and w. H. Vrenden-
burgh VS.. L. Brooks, wife ,et al, appellants;
Rochereau & CO., third opponents, CON
sOidated. Judgment affirmed.
No. 1894. X. l.. Th.ard, appellant. VS..
William Bogel ct al.-From Sixth District
Court. Judgment affirmed.
No. $3.50. Joseph T. Cross vs.. Mrs. C. G.
appellanu.-From Sixth Dis
trict Court. Judgment affirmed.
BY JUSTICE TAL1APERRo.
No. 1926. A. D. Doriocuurt vs.. estate of
Louis Sarini. appellant From Fifth Dis
riot Court Judgment affirmed.
No. 4l2l. John Wolf VS.. city of New Or
cans. appellant.-From Fourth District
Court. Ii the plaintiff was entitled to any
hing it is prescribed. Judgment reversed. |
No. 1876 II. j. sampson vs. Norman
Whitney, appellant From Sixth District |
Court. Suit for $3.50 loaned; the defense
alleging it was for gambling debt where |
10 current money was exhibited The |
'laini1tf keeps gaming house. He re- |
leemed the symbolical particles of bone |
mployed in the game lost by defendant.
he game was prohibited by law The |
laintitf contributed to defendants losses
nd should not be heard in demanding
Judgment reversed.
No. 44l0. Charles H Perry. appellant, vs,
,r. C. Beard.-From Eighth District Court.
Damages for violation Of lease. The ques
ion is only one OF fact. Judgment affirmed.
No. 1885 Charles Fox We. j. s. Neal and
Ohm e. SinnOtt, appellant-Frnin St yentb
district Court. On nore for undivided half
the Magenta. Neal ouly was bound.
Judgment as to Sinnott reversed
No. $685. Charles Graham We. John Cronan
al, appellant From Sixth District
Onrt. The law fixes the surety, Cole
an's, relation to the note. He Endorsed
Bfore the payee, is the surety of the maker
or 10 I'd |
rmad.
No. $3.50. j, H. Fernandez. appellant, vs..
'aise Pradet ct al, appellants. From
1nrth District Court.-When Fernandez
ctiyed the nOie be wae aware of the own
ship. Judgment affirmed.
No 1927 L. II. Gardner & Co. appellant,
J. F. G. Barriere & Co. From Fourth Dis.
let Court.-The goods received by de-
ndant were part of those sold by them to
70 bankrupt. The plaintiff would not
I've been benefited by regular surren.
,r. Judgment affirmed.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 5682. Laura NJ. Eal-r, tutrix, vs.. the
er'ff ct ais, appellants Fifth
strict Judgment aft med.
No. SAIL Frederick Kuntz, plaintiff, ap.
liant, vs. John Bsebr, sheriff From
cond District. Judgment affirmed. II
BY JUSTICE wYLY. Ii
NO. OIL Frank s. Green VS.. Robert X,
lderson, tax collaboration Fifth Dis,
ct. INJUNCTION restraining the collector
I'M selling lands seized. The position, q
q land has been forfeited to the State. |
ts the plaintiff out of court. Morrison vs.. I
rkln, 26 A. The cases cited are prior to 9
No. AZ IF 1871. Injunction dissolved, e
y Judgment annulled. d
No. 1914. State ex rel. Attorney General |
information, Dr. j. B Cooper, appellant, t
DIR. +. Standardization tlle Superior b
strict Court. TIE term Of flee is tixe. +
act No. % of 1869. Act No. GO of 1874 t
s not amend or repeal this; Dr. Cooper t
I'D have been discharged to reduce d
lenses. but not TO appoint DR.. Schu- t
ker; no cha'ges were preferred and he | 4
8 not legally removed Judgment h
Tersed and defendant enjoined from s.
arcisiDg the du les of the office.
No. 1864 John l.. Lewis ct al. We Beban. b
ORB q Co. ct al .appellants.AF Sixth | v
strict Court. judgment annuiled, plain 1
s Gs mand rejected.
,". 1856. A Che valet al. appellants. vs.
dame Casanave.-From The Fourth Dis
t Court. Judgm. mt affirmed n
10. AIS. William II Reynolds vs. j. w =
rks eI al, appellants From Seventh a,
trict Court. Judgment herein amended D
reduced to 1896 IS, end affirmed as a,
,ndtd. -
o. 545l. G. T. Buddecke, appellant, vs. 8,
'rge w. Banc ker.-From Fourth District .,
lrt. Judgment affirmed. r.
%. 5626. Amos Silums vs.. General | +,
ms, experimentation Fifteenth District. N
zeal dismissed. -
%. 5627. James Madison va. James 4,
yer, appeilanf.-From Fifteenth Dis re-
I. Appeal dismissed. NJ
I Il n |
rturn, appeliant.-From Fifteenth Dis. 8;
t. The action for parish Judge must be | h,
lght in eleven days X. l4l9: Des- 8,
Re VS.. Lozano, p a., 79i. Judgment +,
,Ised. -
BY JUSTICE MORGAN a.