The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-02-16

per cent Is reserved by the purchasers t
await the judment in this suit. The same a
to De Feriets sales. But the four pieces o
: property, valued at S38, 500, in the estimat
to make up the reasons for the judgment Q
the lower court, should not be include
IN the amount going to make u
the sum for which execution should issue
They are not money, nor will they sell unde
the execution ordered for more than the /
per cent claimed by the plaintiff If this de
cree is maintained and carried out, the enor
nifty, in the name Of justice would happier
that the execution of decree for Is per cen
of property would exhaust the entire property
The plaintiff is decreed to have a right of ST;
out of every 500 of this property recovered
by the defendant The court says the prop
erty is worth S3S, 500, and gives the plaintiff
the right of execution for S5775 on this iden
teal property.
She seizes and sells the property and buys
it in herself The result is, the owner Of
| 15-100 Becomes, by sort of judicial hocus
pocus the owner OF the whole.
Any decree which could lead to such q
result as this and it is submitted that such
would be the result of the execution of the
decree in that case, would be mockery in
the very name of justice. Such result
would make true the saying that it is impossi-
BILE for Mrs. Gaines to get justice in the
making true such pretense.
Ill What is the nature of the agreement
sued on?
By the contract or agreement sued on. the
defendant obligated herself (see p. of plain
tiff s brief) 'to pay John Mack and Rhoda
E White SIS out OF each and every 500 that
might be received, collected or realized by
her, of, from or out of the
property formerly of Daniel Clark, deceased,
until the sum SO paid should amount to
S3O,OOO," and (page p Mrs. Gaines. for the
purpose of securing the above obligation,
sold, allenated, conveyed and confirmed unto
the plaintiff and the said John Mack, all the
estate, property, rights and interests, etc"
What does this obligation mean? 1t can
mean nothing more than the conveyance Of
15-1OO of the property, ETC., as recovered,
until the amount Of $4,000 and interest was
realized. If only 100000 was ever realized,
Mrs. White could recover only $751; 900. The
Is per cent clause would be a nullity were any
other Interpretation given to the agreement.
While the plaintiff was to receive fifteen
dollars, the defendant would have free from
this claim eighty-fve out of every hundred
dollars so recovered, collected and realized"
This to pay expenses, attorneys fees for col
lection and for her own use.
This agreement is recorded and stands as q |
AcA VI, POI laps, Ute DIS OWuoT, 10 Cuo 6X- |
ent of Is per cent in value-that is 15-1OO of |
Ill the property. 1t can be of no greater ex-
ent. Any purchaser of any of the property
axes it with this lien or incumbrance. Those
Who have purchased have taken the property |
With this reservati on-and, as soon as the |
Judgment rendered in this case is final, can
70 compelled to pay to the plaintiff the
mount recovered.
We indeed have in our jurisprudence no le-
al term for the contract in question, nor is
here. so far as we know, any term at common
Nv for any such form of agreement.
It is SUI gene7is; and, if to be executed, the
ecree must conform to the terms of the
greement in all its parts.
For such property as remains in kind, as
as been recovered, the decree would be, in
arrying out the terms of the agreement, that
be sold and fifteen per cent OF the proceeds
the sale be paid to the plaintiff and credited
4 the judgment for $50, 900 and interest
For such as has been sold, as in the cases
Abel, Hollander, Berge and the sales of
9 Ferret, auctioneer, the fifteen per cent
served by the purchaser would be decreed J
belong to the plaintiff and to be paid over
7 them to her; and for such sums OF money, ..
her than the above which the defendant
ay be found to have recovered, collected
I'd realized, personal judgment might be .
II
ereof, and for which execution might issue .
nerally, against her. !
Such IS the only decree that can, in equity.
rendered against the defendant in event
at the agreement is held to be valid and a
nding upon her-any other would be in y
olation of some part of the agreement and | L
ould defeat the very end sought by Judge S
mott in framing the agreement for the pro- y
ction of his client, the defendant in this b
Sc. Both litigants under the agreement s
We rights, one to fifteen per cent of all Ii
lounts recovered, collected and realized up
100000 and interest, the other to the free
e, enjoyment and ownership of the eighty
e per cent remaining equity and JUS a.
Id equally sacred, and have equal protec. o
n at the hands of the court al
Respectfully submitted,
FELLOWS Il MILLS. a.
Rehearing refused. i,
This tribunal was yesterday engaged in the a,
al of causes. Much to the surprise of r.
mber of litigants no decisions were read. Il
On Saturday last the following cases were Al
,ided: b
REHEARING GRANTED. II
Calender VS.. Golsan Brothers.
REHEARINGs REFUSED. I'll
aougieux VS.. Voitier II
Radovich VS.. Frigerio, Jr. TO
slash x Co. VS.. A. W. Norris & Co. &C
Lee VS.. Noel.
Ietory VS.. Forstall. ~,
tenshaw, Cammack & Co. vs.. Gomez. vi
)ockham VS.. Potter.
Miller VS.. Chandler. SO
togers VS.. Roberts.
White vs. Myra Clark Gaines. III
1eorge vs. Tucker.
state ex rel. Crescent City Water Works ma
npany VS.. Deslonde. %
Peasants VS.. Stackhouse, d. A. Given, in
nishee. IN
'Orrell vs.. Laurent. st,
)elavigne vs.. the Beaujeu Brick Manufac- It'll
ing Company.
>rugere vs. the heirs of John Slidell.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
n the case of Isaacson, Seixas & Co. VS.. ltJ
Hibernia Insurance Company, Judge Gull Ie
rendered this morning his opinion. co
Plaintiffs sue to recover $50 for goods
pped on the Era No. - for jefferson, to-
ias, and almost entirely lost in hausitu st
az had an open policy with the Hibernia