New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-01-19

uOUS Oh GEoUZner, Wlnenlll u 20. PIaiutlfts
appealed, and asked that the credit allowed
by the Judgment be stricken out. Pending
proceedings plaintiffs sued out writ of
attachment against defendants, on the al
legation that they were about to convert
their property into money, or evidences Of
debt with intent to place it beyond the
reach of creditors. The defendants stock
of merchandise and personal property were
seized by the sheriff and released on bond.
The TeutOnia bank was clearly without
right to hold Loeb 81 Co.'s note pledged
to secure a particular debt on Gretzner,
Winehill d Co., on account of any
other indebtedness of that firm to the bank.
The bank should have surrendered the col.
lateral on the offer to pay that note. Loeb
Il Co. did suffer in mercantile circles, but
the amount assessed by the Jury was too
large. Judgment is annulled and reversed.
1t is ordered that the plaintiff recover from
H. Loeb g. Co., defendants, $1,000; that
plaintiff return to defendant the note sued
for; aud that H. Loeb g. Co. recover from
the plaintiff, on their unconventional de-
mand, $500; plaintiff paying costs in lower
court, and defendants and appellees of this
appeal.
No. 1850. Jean B. Letory vs.. Edmund J.
FOrstall ct al.-FrOm Seventh District
COurt.-This suit is brought against the
plaintiff and other parties alleged as com
posing a partnership for the purpose of
purchasing and owning the Mississippi Cot
ton Press and the branch press forming
part of the same Felix j. Forstall, de-
ceased, one of the copartners, and acting
as representative, on November l, 1859,
purchased from plaintiff the said property
for $1,000 This copartnership, through
F. j. FOrstall, paid from time to time pOr-
tions of the purchase price, leaving on
April %, 1868, $3S,933 80, for which sum,
with eight per cent interest thereon from
April 30, 1868, this suit is brought. De-
PENDANTS filed separate answers, all pleading
the general issue. Judgment was rendered
against defendants, each for his share of
the debt. remittUr was afterward entered
for a portion of the amount recovered.
Defendants, failing to secure new trial,
appealed. The nOtarial act simply conveys
1.-THE Mississippi Cotton Press" to +. J..
FOrstall. There is no conclusive proof of a
copartnership or that Forstall acted as an
agent. Judgment annulled and avoided; it
is ordered that judgment be in favor of
defendants, plaintiff paying costs in both
courts.
No. $3.50. Charles Diamond Vs. Robert E.
Diamond ct al.-From Second District
CouTt.-Tbis suit was instituted by the
plaintiff to recover his share of the success
sions of his grandfather denied to him and
his brother representing their deceased
| father as one of the four heirs of their
grandparents. Judgment in favor Of
plaintiff affirmed, with costs.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 1902. Thomas E. M. Smith VS.
| Patrick Donnelly-From Fourth District
COurt.-This, partnership suit, is remand.
ed, to be proceeded with according to law,
| the judgment appealed from and the order
set aside and reversed.
No. 1908 P. N. Rivera VS.. LATTE;
DufliO & Co. ct al.-From Fourth District
| Court.-This is an action on an attachment
bond for actual and vindictive damages
| alleged to have resulted from the illegal
| issuance of said attachment. 1t was Judi,
oially determined that the writ was illegal
| ly issued and the conditions of the bond
make defendants liable for actual damages
| The actual damage is the counsel fee and
| interest Judgment is reversed; plaintiff to
recover from defendant $40 with legal
interest from judicial demand and costs in
both courts.
No. 1886. Daniel a. James D. Edwards
We. the BTingier Sugar Extracting Com
pany.-Third opposition of NJ. S. Bringier
From Fifth District Court.-The plaintiff
having Judgment against the defendants
caused a certain United States patent to b,
seized and sold by the sheriff. 1t was ad
Indicated to NJ. S. Bringier, the origina
patentee, who paid the price to the sheriff
and claimed the same by third opposition
| u
pealed. 1t is shown that Bringier received
in consideration certain stock of the com
paDy, and has no privilege as vendor Judg
! ment reversed, and demand of third Oppo
nent dismissed with costs.
No. 1889. Lucy Hammelt and husband VS.
Payne, Huntington 81 Co.-From Fourth
District Court. : Appeal dismissed witt
costs.
No. $500. w. S. Peterkin VS.. George Mar
| rim -Eronn Fourth Distriot COurt-MOtiOT
| to dismiss refused.
No. 1926. f. c. Mahan VS.. F. Mitchell
and wife.-Fromi Fifth District Court
| When appellee asks for an amendment o
the Judgment he will not be allowed dam
ages. X. 450; 8 A. 10. Judgment al
| tirmed.
No. 5447. A. B. Edgerly. executor, VS.. W
G. Smith.-FrOm Fifth District Court
Motion to dismiss refused and Judgment al
tirmed.
No. $685. Miss II. S. Morft VS.. j.
| Fuentes,-From Sixth District COurt.-It
ordered that Judgment in favor of plaintiff
and that in favor of Myra Clark Gaines
and that as to Van Wyck be affirmed, wit
costs in both courts as to each respectively
also, that Judgment in favor of defendant
j. Fuentes, against the heirs of t. II. Fal
ish, as warrantors, be set aside, and tn
case as to these parties be remanded. Cost
of appeal to be paid for by appellants.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. $685. Samuel Smith s. Co. VS.. the cit
of New Orleans, ct al.-FrOm Eighth Di
trict Court. Judgment affirmed with cost
No. 4436. Rhode E. White VS.. Myra Clar
Gaines From Fifth District Court. Judt
ment affirmed with amendment.
No. 1876. Citizens Bank OF Louisiana Vi
John Baltz.-FFOm Fourth District Cour
Baltz owed note secured by mortgage I
the Phoenix National Bank of New forl
1t was sent to the Citizens Bank of LOul
lana for collection, and lost. Baltz e.
pressed willingness to pay when the not
was presented. The Citizens Bank Otfere
indemnity bond, but he declined, and SUI
was instituted against him. The question
before us are; /. Is he liable for tn
interest due on the note from ms
turityl .. Is he responsible for couns'
fees 8. Should he pay costs of act
mortgage 4. The costs of the adVertls
ment of the lost note We give an athrmi
tive answer. He could have avoided all b
making a deposit of the amount of the moi
when il fell due, thus putting the plaintiffs
default. He was not responsible for the mi
fortunes and negligence of plaintiffs, an
should not pay costs of advertising. Jud!
ment is amended by Condemning defeAdaT
to pay interest from December -, 1871
costs Of sale and attorneys fees; as amended
it is affirmed with costs in both courts.
No. 1884. Henry j. Lorrell VS.. NictC
Laurent.-From Fifth District Court. Judi
ment of lower court annulled and reversed
and Judgment given in favor of plaintiff
] claimed in petition, with costs in both court
No. 3S45. Renshaw, CRmmack Il Co. VI
| Augustine Gomez,-From Fourth Distrit
Court Judgment affirmed.
No. 5474. Joseph Brugere VS.. the heirs I
John Slidell From Fourth District Cour
, The United States, under decree Of 10