The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-02-01
THE COURTS.

n
THE COURTS.
United States Circuit Court.
In the case of the United States vs.. Chas
+ Choisy, the Jury rendered verdict again !,
the defendant for $154 88. This was q suit K
: recover duties on goods received here.
United States vs.. J. J. Herr and G II. Cady
The jury in the above case brought in yer
dict Tor the government for SIT, this amount
being for duties.
F. Case, Receiver, vs.. Robert Watson
There was a verdict brought in by the jury
empanneled in the above case for the de.
PENDANT.
Kenner, owner Of the Wild Wagner, fled
suit against the city of New Orleans for SILL
3l9, Wharfage paid under protest, alleging
the ordinances empowering the city to collect
dues are unconstitutional.
United States VS.. Vredenburg Il Co. Upon
the verdict of Fthe jury there was judg-
ment entered against E. E. O'Brien and John
b. Ray for S2l3 SO for duties on certain
goods.
Jackson vs.. Shreveport, vicksburg and
Texas Railroad Company. A rule was filed
in this case for parties in interest to sho "
cause why tho Master in Chancery's report
should not be made the judgment of the
Court.
| Frank Case Va. William Rufus Crane. Owing
to the indisposition of the defendant the case
Was continued until to-day, when doubtless
the courtroom will be crowded to listen to
| his argument
Fourth District Court.
Mrs. L. G. Billiard VS.. Eugene Waggaman
ct al Exception of defendants under advise
| ment.
Marie Josephine Lasalle and husband vs..
Pierre Nougue. Exception under advise
ment
Achille Boitre VS.. Stanislas Fourier Judg-
ment in favor Of plaintiff for $222O with inter
est at eight per cent.
Moses Loeb & Co. vs. Wallace & Co. judy
ment in favor Of plaintiff, for S4O6 SO with in
terest at five per cent
JAS r Mitchell vs.. j. n Shawhan. Judg-
ment in favor OF plaintiff for SIPS with interest
at five per cent. and 50 SO COSTS Of protest.
Josephine Shaeffer VS.. Pierre Nougue.
Cause discontinued.
Z Dollsle & Co. vs.. Jacob Benedick. De-
PENDANT against defendant.
Fifth District Court.
DECISION OF JUDGE CULLoM.
Mrs. NJ. A. Laloire. wife, ETC., vs. P. s.
Witt, ct als.-The plaintiff, authorized and
assisted by her husband, claims to be the
Felix Berraud, Of the parish of st. Marin,
payable to his own order, and by him in
dorsed, dated December 80, 1872 and pay
able December !, 1873. It is note for $500,
bea ing 8 per cent interest from maturity. It
was secured by the vendors privilege on the
undivided half of plantation in the parish
of St. Martin. At the time Of the sale Of the
plantation the petitioner and her planting CO.
partner were indebted to P. s. Witt L Co.
about 1924 4S, to secure which, and for the
purpose of getting other advances, the said
note was delivered as pledge to Wilt 4 Co.
The debt to them was not paid at maturity,
and decision of raising money with which to
carry on their mercantile business, they
pledged it, with other notes, etc., which they |
held either as their own or as collatera!s, as |
they did this.
The firm has since failed, and the pledge |
has passed out from their control. Mr.. Witt |
testified that his claim of S2724 AZ had been
paid at maturity. His firm could have re-
stored the note to the plaintiff.
I. has fallen in the hands of the third party |
through tho negotiations of Wilt & Co., who |
claiming to be the owners thereof, have seized |
the mortgaged property and sold it for its
payment in full. Mrs. Laloire complains of |
this, and alleges that the note, less the sum |
of S2724 48, which was due to Wilt & Co.,
belonged to her, and she prays that that firm
may be decreed to pay it to her with interest,
etc.
The institution of this suit placed the firm
of Will u Co. in default. A party may BE-
placed in default in three different ways, viz:
l. By the terms of a contract. 2. By the act
OF the party when, after the time stipulated
for the perform ance, he demands that it shall
be carried into effect, which demand may be
made either by the commencement Of a suit
by a demand in writing, etc. G. G. 1911; 2
s. IS N. s. SAG; L. 385; 8 r 495.
The plaintiff having declared her readiness
to perform her part OF the contract of pledge,
it was the duty of Witt & Co. to have been
prepared to surrender the pledge since they
had no right to make any use Of it except to
retain it as such. Story on Built, s. 307.
It follows that plaintiff is entitled to judy
nent for balance due her on the note, after
therefrom the sum really due
Witt & Co., with interest I see no sutfi cient
.eason for awarding damages.
E. NORTH CULLoM, Judge
SIKH District Cour
H. Montrueil vs. J. Chapus. New trial re.
used.
Widow Minnie Schustein vs.. Leopold Bod
leimsr. Judgment in favor Of plaintiff for
he sum of $3.50. etc. i
Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company vs..
pjamin 4 Co. aud Louis Benjamin. Judg-
nent in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of
s72sS 60. Ii
f. Favre vs. Dr. L Roudenez Judgment l
or plaintiff for $50, 95S A. !
Schmidt 4 Ziegler vs.. Mrs. X. DIETRICH !
Judgment for plaintiffs in the sum Of $3.50 SO
Martin Soye vs.. NJ. A. Price ct al Judg-
nent for plaintiff, and jointly against the
minor heir and the said NJ. A. Price-frst for
$500, with per cent from the 18th day of &
July, 1875, per cent attorneys fees, special S
mortgage to take effect July II, 1867, and
so against said defendants in solido for the I
um of $1,000, bearing s per cent interest, 1
With per cent for attorneys fees, and special .
mortgage TO take effect from 18th day of Sep = =