The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-05-20
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

Prcscnt.All the justices
ny THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
No 1885, H. a. Tyler VS.. J. NJ. Conway.-Re-
hearing granted
No e5n VIM d. Floyd vs.. The State Of Louis
misunderstanding refused.
No Go79. J. Faust. Bro. & Co.. VS.. Glynn Il
No. sals Mrs A lsI"ssp Nee Pitcher w. L.
schwartz& ". Pugh-Rehearing refused. -,
No. 4727. The Teutonia National Bank VS.. The
Southern Bank.-fehearing refused.
No. 1890. N. J.. Block VS.. A. Bonnet-Rehear-
No. el42. T. N. Routh. ct ais. VS.. Citizens
Bank. ct ala. -Itehcaring refused.
! No. 1922. James Reid. appellant. vs. Louisiana
state Lottery Company. Appeal from Superior
defense to an action is that plaintiff, with others,
conspired to defraud defendant, the acts and
declarations Of one ,consrirator are admissible
against his accompliceS as part OF the res gest1.
Therefore correspondence between two OF plain
titfs aacompices. though he be not party
tons of fact this Court will not disturb the
judgment Of the District Judge or the verdict Of
aIury. unless manifestly erroneous Judgment
Justices Howell and WHY dissent
No. 1916. s. Watson, trustee, appellant. VS.. Ed
ward 9. Billings ct al. Appeal from Fifth Dis
trict Court, parish oi Orleans -Judgncnt at
No. 542s. City Of New Orleans VS.. Geo. W.
Campbell. Samuel and Andrew Smith. plaintiffs
District Court. parish Of Orleans. Appellants
purchased from Campbel his rights to certain
property, which no had leased from an asylum.
and upon which he had ertscted improvements,
and they now seek to have erased the registry of
judgments for taxes obtained thereon by, plain
tiff against thu DESCENDANT. Plaintiffs in rule have
no right or interest to inquire into the validity
of these taxes; they are not assessed against the
asylum. but against Campbell. whose valuable
improvements are subject TO taxation even II the
land be not. Besides. the law prohibits the sale
Of property. unless the taxes be acknowledgement
affirmed. Justices Howell and Morgan dissent
No l73i. Horter. Peterson 4 Fenner. appel
lants vs. Merchants Mutual Insurance Com
pany. Appeal from Fifth District Court, parish
Of Orleans. In the absence Of proof that plain
tiff had knowiedga that an accident had befallen
the vessel insured. there is no force in the de-
enss a DUE snd ha by bna
keeper OF the company instead OF by its marine
clerk. Plaintiffs had q right to present them
open and TO presume that the EN- poyees in said
Office were authorized TO transact the business
they undertook to perform. Judgment reversed.
BY JUSTICE rALIAYERRo.
No eoc3 r. 4. Chanut vs.. Levasseur l. Co ct
ala. and z. Z. Chanut vs.. z; I. Layasseur; Con-
solidated. Appeals from Fifth District Court,
parish OF Orleans. Judgment affirmed.
Co. appelisuis Appeal from Firth District
Court. partsh OF Qrleaas.-JudTment reversed
fs yoan 81. Go9Hno. s s pst1
parish q East Baton Rouse."yudsmsnt amend mend
Cd 80 as 70 prohibit tho Police Jury from ievying
the iudxmehts against the parish. '' '''''''
No. co9s Howard 4 Preston 70; Mississippi
Valley bank; appellants Appeal from Fifth
to recover the amount Of drafts drawn upon
themselves by one Of their correspondents
which. having been discounted by the defendant
were paid ty them. and subsequently proved to
be forgeries. They contend that they were mis-
led and thrown Of their guard by the negligence
third holders without requiring their endorse
ments when upon the face Of the drafts they
appeared TO have been obtained directly from
the drawer. The drawee OF bill is presumed
to have better knowledge of the signature o,
the drawer than the holder and must rely upon
his own knowledge and not upon prescriptions
arising from the opinions OF OtherB-J Judgment
reversed.
BIZ JUSTICE WHY.
No. 62s5. Mrs Nancy Lottspeich. tutrix. vs.
Jason T. Diboll ct al, appellants Appeal from
Fifth District Court. parish of Orleans. No con-
,eryatory writ can he issued by the lower court
in accuse pending an appeal before this tribunal
the lower court having no jurisdiction further
than to test the sureties on the appeal bond
judgment reversed and Injunction dissolved
with $3.50 damages.
No 4sss Succession Of Richard Condor Thos
Mcmahon defendant in rule and appellant. Ap-
peal from second District Court. paris of Or
leans. II Is well settled that when succession
property L. sold TO pay debts. by order Of a ourt
having jurisdiction, the purchaser gets good
title, all incumbrances being tranferred from
the thing sold to the proceeds under control 81
the Acknowledgement affirmed
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No. 5765. Eandoll Hunt vs. James Z. cunts. APP
Dspt - r1% hs ss1h District r.
differences between them to arbitratOrs, and
bound themselves to abide by the award that
might be made. STIMULATING the penalty to be i'm
posed upon him who neglected to pay the
amount OF the award within certain day
Their power TO enter into such an agreement is
expressly recognized BY law. and defendant hav.
ing failed to comply with the award. Is bound
for the amount thereof. and for the penalty
stipulated for tbs Noncompliance herewith
Judgment affirmed. Justice WHY dissents.
FRIpvY May 10, 1876.
NJ THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
No. 5ess. ". W. Washburne vs.. W. Van Norden
ct al. appellants. Appeal from Fifth Districs
Court parish Of Orleans. Judgment affirmed
Justice WHY disscntS.
BY JUSTICE TALIAFERRo
No 4s,,. Commercial Press vs. Union National
Bank. appellant. Apneal from Superior Dis
trict Cour parish OF Orleans.-Judgment re-
Aersed.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL
No 61.a Chas. A. johnson. appellant. VS..
town OF Donadsnnville. Appeal from District
cour parish of Ascension. This case is similar
TO that Of Felix Brand VS. same defendant. re-
Gently Observation-Disclosures reversed
No lsl6. Marx Israel vs.. Teutonia Insurance
Company appellant Appeal from Eighth Dis
trict Court parish of o leans. The difference
between the amount of loss sworn to by the as
aurod ard the yaiue prOyan on the trial lS not