The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-01-25

| tfiat Court. In which Court Defendant Heu the
plea Of Hs pendieps. The FIRST suit waS dismissed
| By plaintlh without defendants knowledge.
Plaintiff neglected ~ lappenr on the trial 81 the
exception l9. the sisth District Court, and THIS
suit WINS dismissed as In ossse of non suit.
| Plaintiff nov, seeks to annul the Judgment Of
dismissal. This Judgment Is the result d plain
| tif 3 negligence and no fraudulent misrepre.
sentation by defendant Is shown. judgment
| affirmed,
No, sse9. succession .ot Simon Teaulet. Tho
ssas wiz aFssfs " r., ss d a ps a
NJ. With The, terms a q adiuhcation. lie alleges
he resided and where his property was situated |.
That the Second District Court for the parish ~
Orleans, by whose order the sale wps made. was
therefore without jurisdiction and no title can
This defenoe Is untensbs, as aet No. II Of 1874
annesss .o the parish Of gfleans that portion ggf
tns parlsh OF Jefferson whereby tho property Is
Exception 10 tho jurisdiction Of the court was
overruled and The eass rstnahded for further
| No bso. Tho State Of Louisiana OK rel, Ella
u. Menl4 appellant VS.. Charles Clinton. Audi
issue wartant n favor r of rsl.tof ior bis salary
as Patsh Judge. The Auditor ayers that he has
already Issued t9 relator . warrant fer The. pro-
| tlon obtained In suit Mo. 2s.44D Of the superior
District Court against the parts of this general
appropriation bill pfoyidihg pr thn salaries OF
could be drawn, The proceedings IL suit No.
26. .s4o. ofleredln, evidence. were res inter alias
atpr, who vas not a.party therstc. The other
point. was decided In the case Of the New Orleans
gssSa ,eys1as rsps M Mpo.sey says arssn w. @a9a @
No. sstp zai,oen Taylor VS.. ?. n. Carroll, ep-
pnant. This suit In to render tho defendant lln-
bic tof note secured by q mortgage which dc.
fenJant II alleged ty have assumed. Plaintiff,
under whom defendant holds, having been sued
le9nR his assumption thereof. and in that suit
tlsre was Judgment In favor qf Carroll. Ills
plea Of res judlcata terein hled should therefore
| he maintained. Judgment reversed. Mr.. JUS
| tice WHY dlssents.
BY Justice Taliatsroi
No. t.as J2ssPh Aiesaaanr , vs. City gi Nsw Or
No. O. ss1s itsppen bird and THOMPSON bird
executors Of John Bird vs. John Cookfstn. re-
This case having been transferred TO The
United States Ciront court, was, ordered
finn District Court, whore II had bees
originally brought this batter court there
upon ordered It reinstate9 upon the docket
Defendants exception tbat the original order t.
transfer was a final Judgment, revisable only On
appeal. was properly overrued. On the merits
Il appears that the notes sought 70 be recovered
by plaintiff were the property gf John Bird. anf
were never aliepated by him. After theit. matqr
ity they were pledged 10 the bank Of which :, de
lendent Is receiysrblt,gs agents 70 ssc4rs ta, i
maturity could bs made without the ownsrs
consent. which would affect bis right to Lscovel
hS Sa sss aeo uaa M"a rSs4aes oomeg
appellant. vs.. ii. M. Horrell This case Is sitpia
In ail important aspects to the proceeding one
JY9g%rsnt % nilIt % mol
No. bsei Bt"lisI, Johnson appellant, vs
Marco Popo ,.t,.l. et ais Tho amount involves
5000. Appeal dismissed
No. $3.50. Virginia A. Talbot. widow Of H. A
rg,ter ys Wm H. Hunt and AZ, f. n appsllants e
X tRas Is said d., marslagS sglmatsd tbs children .
deceased and plaintiff born prior theretn. 1be
% fbsy"s Be- a"yssssa nssa y s c as e s i @
and II does NOT aprear that the children wsr'
acknowledged by the fathor as directed by saie
No, colo Mrs. J. O. do 81. homes, appellant. VS.
the darondelet Canal and Navigation Company
No No. soes Btate oi Louisiana ex rel. H. Bird VS.
Judge Of Tho superior District Court. Man
demus mede Re1emptory.
M. eo7s. State III Louisiana OK rel. A. r. Field
Attorney General. and y. r. Dumas. appellant
ys. Thos. Carey In this case. brought under th'
intrusion art pqntifr was not entitled to . jury
his application therefor coming too late, y hay
Ing been iled on The day Qf the trial. As to th'
,, merits, the power Of Tho Governor to remove
, Tux collector and appoint u successor is no long
. No. @ $50" $40 psyne, Huntington o. ", Geo. "
| Turner, appellant JudEHleiit htliflned . .
No. issD. Potter Dyer vs.. Peter Riley ahd mis-.
appellants. This is u suit aeainst the inate ant
owners Of tho steamer Natohez for t2o.o 900 dama
ges. From ~ judgment for 5000 damhges th'
, owners have appealed Riley the mute of TN
boat threw o pine knot ut plaintiff. striking bin
on tho eye. thereby ehusng him ~ loss i. It II
| not shown that Tho mate w1s Wting within th'
scoops of his authority and his employers aro M
liable Judgment reversed as to tho ownnrs
The Ghaf Justice dssents
by Justice Morgan
No. $3.50 Rtfte ox rel. J. Wood vs. Judge NJ TN
epptorv
N. 4s4o. Mrs. Bertha Louis md Gustave Louis
appelants. VS.. Widow J. u. PepiD. tutrix. Ct als
, The motion 10 dismiss comes too late. Motor
refused.