New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-05-25


solve the question, unless We can affirm
that the entire contract is to be governed
by Louisiana law. Does the fact that
portion Of the contract must necessarily be
performed in Louisiana subject it to that
condition? If it does, then the like fact
that portion of the contract is necessarily
to be performed in Alabama would subject
it to Alabama law and make it an Alabama
contract.
In this embarrassment / do not know
that can do better than to tall back on
the general rule that contract is to be
governed by the law Of the place where
it is made. The presumption that,
where contract is to be performed
in q different jurisdiction, the parties
must be intended to have in view
the laws of the latter seems to be repelled
when the performance is to take place in
several different Jurisdictions. For, when
there are two equal and opposite presump-
tions, neither Of them can prevail. The
present case is still stronger; for much of
The contract was pertormable, and actually
performed in the place where it was made.
I do not mean to cay that where the main
and principal part of . contract is to be
performed in State different from that in
which it is made, the presumption will not
arise that is made in reference to the laws
of such place Of performance, even though
quired to be performed in etill different
States. Such may very possibly be the re-
suit in many instances that may occur
When they happen they will be governed
by the force of their own circumstances.
But do not zee that am called to apply
any such exceptional rule in this case. The
building of the railroad in question was
very important consideration. il is true;
but the contract embraced many other con-
%hn%
not necessary to be performed IN Louisiana.
The conclusion, therefore, to which am
forced to come to is, that the principal con-
tract, made on the twelfth Of December,
1871, between the complainant and the New
Orleans, Mobile and Texas Railroad Com.
pany was New York contract, governed,
as to it's nature and obligation, by the laws
AID jurisprudence of the State OF New
York, and az by these laws and jurispru-
consequence follows from . nOn-perfOrm-
ance Of part Of the contract as is claimed
in this case. the claim is untenaDle, and the
relief must be refused.
As no relief can be granted on either of
the grounds laid in the bill Of complaint,
the sane must be dismissed with coste.
James Buckner vs.. assignees of CONNER
cial Bulletin, bankrupt.-A landlord can
not prove rent after bankruptcy of the
occupy without paying rent in full. For
rent after bankruptcy the landlord has
nothing to do with the expenses of the
estate. A petition for rent in this case is
like any other for rent. The assignees may
therefore have trial by jury. and in that
contingency the plaintiff may amend his
petition and claim a judgment for the whole
the net proceeds of the goods in the leased
premises.
Peter jackson vs.. steamer Fleta.-Libel-
liant was Q steward, injured by the break
ing Of derrick in hosting skiff. After
going to the hospital for two months he
was re-engsged on board the Fleta till she
was laid up for repairs, and did his duties
with his arm in q sling. He was in the line
Of his duty at the time the work was to be
done and the captain made no objection, he
having ordered him to do the work. He
could not have been foolish enough to re-
main il danger if he had been warned of it,
as alleged. He says he heard no warning,
perhaps from the noise of the machinery.
He alleges the derrick was rotten: the off,
cers, that it was sound, and explain that q
derrick four inches in diameter in hosting
skih thirteen feet long broke IN three
pieces, because the boat struck the bank &C.
cidentally at the time. / do not know that
can hold the master or owners Of the steamer
liable on the ground of negligence. But
there is rule Of maratime law which enti-
ties a seaman, who has received in uries or
has become sick in the course Of his EN-.
ployment. to be allowed wages and to be
taken care of until he is cured. The limits
of this right have not been clearly defined
in respect to internal navigation. But
think the libellant is clearly entitled to the
benefit of this rule for the time that he was
in the hospital and until he was re-emplOyed
on the steamer. The views of Judge Durell
in Jones Vs. Tidal Wave are adopted. Ii
bellant is to recover his wages. and the
damages to be fixed after hearing by Com
missioner NJ. NJ. Cohen.
Edgar Mott ct al. VS.. steamboat Sabine
This is not entirely like the authorizes re-
ferred to. Property and owners can not be
proceeded against in the same libel. COnk.,
prohibited. Wal, 266; % How, PIG.
Judgment of the district court affirmed;
the cause to be heard on the libel.
Supreme Court.
Present-An the judges.
Cases will be called Monday, May 90.
The following decisions were rendered:
REHEARINGs GRANTED.
No. 6062. State of Louisiana vs. Henry
Fassman
No. 62o4. Mary Hardy VS.. John A.
Stephenson.
REdEARlNGS hEt USED.
No. 3046. Succession Of William Hacken-
schmidt.
No. 1891. Wheeles & Pratt vs. F. NJ. Fisk.
No. 1890. Commercial Press vs. Union
National Bank.
No. 4717. Joseph B, Hubbard vs.. Susan
D Moore.
No. 472l. E. Heietand vs.. city of New
Orleans.
No. 473l. Horter, Peterson Il Fenner vs..
~ Mnt
No. 473l. E. T. Merrick vs.. David B.
North.
No. 4sS7. Thomas j. Semmes We. Edward
w. Burbank.
No. 53s2. Edward Thompson VS.. Mrs.
Rosetta E. Grow.
No. $685. Randell Hunt vs. James E.
No. 57ss. Rhoda E. White VS.. Myra Clark
Gaines.
No. 1854. Jacob Strauss VS.. H;bernis
Bank.
No. 1888. Peter Hellwege vs.. Hibernia
Bank
No. 1881. Leon Godchaux vs. Union Ma
tiopal Bank.
No. 5955. Succession of DR.. Newton Mer-
Ger.
No. 6O15. Etienne villavaso VS.. Augustus
w. Walker.
No. 6O42. Mrs. Reid Mills Vs. Sheriff wag-
No 605l. Charles Madueli ct al. We. P. 81.
Mousseaux ct al.
No. 6O75. Jean Mandere vs.. Francois Bon
seignore.
No. CLIO. City of New Orleans vs. H. S.
Buckner.
No. 6l3l. City of New Orleans rs. St. Pat
rick's Hall.
Wsggsman.
No. GAS. Jean Mandere vs. Francois Bon.
seignore.
No. GIGS. Atala Lecompte ct al. We. C. L.