New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-01-11

The Representation was dismissed, and the
plaintiff appealed. The evidence shows the
Louisiana National Bank is not the Fiscal
Agent of the city. and that the funds in
pOsit0r, to the credit of the interest funds,
10 be checked as such to pay the interest
coupons, which does not in our opinion vest
the title to the aaid funds in the holders of
the coupons, and hence such holders can not
properly sequester the same as owners. If
there is good ground to fear that the city
will divert the funds from the purpose for
which they are collected and deposited,
there is q remedy to prevent it. but it is not
the depositary of the city, an individual de-
positOr of said bank the writ Of seQuestra-
ton can not properly issue against the bank
in q claim against the city. In any view of
the facts of this case, and the relations be
tween the city and defendant bank. the
writ of sequestratiOn is nos the remedy of
the plaintiff, and the writ was correctly set
aside. Judgment affirmed. Rehearing ap-
piled for.
No. 59l5. Succession of John A. Miller
Opposition of Mrs. Metcalf, appellant
From Second District Court. The admin
istratrix charged two sight drafts to nj RS.
Metcalf as portion Of her share already
received. She alleged they were dOna-
ton. 1t is no part of the administrators
duty to make partition. Mrs. Metcalt's
rights to contest the charge against her in
subsequent proceeding should have been
reserved. Judgment so amended affirmed,
the succession to pay costs.
No. 1891. William Cullinan ct al Vs.
city of New Orleans, appellant.-From Su-
perior District Court. Injunction on license
tax. Under the authority of the State VS..
Endorn, q A., 663, the provisions of the Ii.
cense ordinance are in conflict with article
llS of the constitution, as the tax for the
license is in proportion to the number OF
vehicles and the number Of horses used to
draw them, and not upon the business or
vocation; nor is it upon the value of the
property. if it be intended as iproperty
tax. % A., 449; % A., 726, "a A., ll2;; &c A.,
lao. Judgment affirmed.
No. 4l09. G. E. Phillips vs. Blakemore
Brothers & Co. appellanHs.-From the Su-
perior District Court. Bien was not the
general agent Of defendants, but merely
authorized to file special orders for the pur-
for the price with margin and attach the
bills of lading to his drafts. The plaintiff
fails to show he had authority to draw the
draft in suit. Judgment reversed.
No 5777. State ex rel j. Burton vs. David
jackson, clerk, appellant-From the Thir-
tenth Judicial District. Mandamns to COM
pei the clerk to deliver all process of court
required by law. 1t is difficult to under
stand what interest the clerk of a court can
have, of an appeslahle nature in the ques-
tiop, or what injury he can sustain officially
or otherwise by the judgment. Appeal dis
missed.
No. $3.50. Mrs. Malvina D. Stone VS.. fac
ulty of medical department of the Cniver
eity of Louisiana, appellant.-From Su-
perior District Court. On mortgage note
for $500. The defendants are corpora
ton, act of April 2, 1885; act of 1917; act of
1855, re-enacted in 1870. Judgment affirmed.
No. 1914. Charles S. Frantz, appellant, VS..
E Waggaman, sheritf.-From Fifth District
Court. The judgment is not signed. Ap-
peal dismissed.
BY JUSTICE wYLY.
No. 5943. State Of Louisiana. appellant.
va. A. G.. Banks.-From Twelfth Judicial
District. Embezzlemen.. The Indictment
was quashed on motion of prescription, and
the district attorney appealed. The courts
jurisdiction is where the punishment Of
death, or imprisonment at hard labor, or a
tine exceeding $500 is actually imposed.
Comet, Art. "a. No penalty has been i'm
posed. The motion must prevail. - A.,
564. Appeal dismissed.
No. SSH. Mary Malay VS.. William Nal
ady and Mary B. Caldwell, appellants
From Fourth District Court. Judgment
creditor, John Mooney, third opponent.
shall he paid out of the entire proceeds OF
the sale, and the balance thereof be divided
between plaintiff and defendants in the
proportion of one-fourth to plaintiff, and
three -fourths to defendants.
No. 5iS9. Widow aud heirs Of Julien
Seshers We. Nelvil Soule ct al, appellants
From Sixth District Court II was not
necessary in the petition of appeal that the
11or 20 ho n yrlQa M
appellees. 1t was the duty of the clerk
and sheriff to see that they were notified.
No appeal should be dismissed unless the
fault is that of appellants. Motion to dis
miss Overruled.
No. 1926. Samuel Smith e. Co, appel
lants. vs.. Nicholas j. Hoey.-From Sixth
District Court. Injunction against execu-
ton of two Judgments. Plaintiffs had no
right to the injunction. They never had
not even mortgage creditors. If the mort
gage remained they would not have the
right, because the sale of the property could
not inlure them. Judgment affirmed, with
increase Of damages from ten to twenty per
cent.
No. 1894. Athens Manufacturing Company
of Georgia, appellant, VS.. Thomas II.
Hunt.-On bill OF exchange Endorsed by de-
PENDANT. Plaintiff has failed to chow that
honor of the bill. He was not an accom-
mediation indorser, and was entitled to no.
tice. Judgment affirmed.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. 5s4l. 3. M. johnson, appellant, We.
Blakemore g. Co.-FrOm Fifth District
Court. August 9, 1873, defendants wrote
plaintiff MI. N. b. Adams was authorized
''to solicit and CONT oil shipments of cotton"
for them. November &c plaintiff asked for
a letter saying his drafts would be hOnOred.
December 10 defendants answered. "Mr.
Adams is authorized to value against us
upon any cotton which he may chip or con-
troll, to be shipped to u.s." Up to May ID,
1874, he shipped 1910 bales and drew, mostly
through plaintiff, for upwards Of $4,000.
The last draft Of $4,000 was dishonored. A
special jury Of merchants found for the de-
PENDANTS. The defendants are bound to
pay under their letters to plaintiff. That
of December 10 is full and complete. The
draft was drawn on cotton shipped to de-
PENDANTS. No bills OF lading were attached
to any of the drafts. The last one was in
the regular order of business as carried on
between the parties. Verdict set aside and
Judgment annulled. Judgment for plaintiff
Tor $8642 20 and all costs.
No. 1852. r. G. Howard, appellant. VS.. E.
Waggaman, sheriff.-Fr0m Sixth District
Court. Irvine obtained judgment against
plaintiff and X. II. Short, the latter only
appealing. In sustaining the appeal this
court could not include plaintiff, because
he was not before it. Whatever was the
consideration of the obligation, the judg-
ment of the district court has long since be-
come final. Plaintiff has got himself into
trouble by his own neglect, and we can not
relieve him. Judgment affirmed.
No. 6O33. State w. Henry Cason, appel
lant.-From Fourteenth Judicial District.
criminal case. Sentence of TWO years. Plea
of prescription of one year. r. S.. 1856.