New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-15

COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY IA, 1876.

COURT RECORD.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY ii, 1876.
United States Supreme Court.
Roberts & DickersoD, trus tres of Sloo, vs.
United States.-Claim for carrying mails
from New York to various Southern ports
by contract iu 1851. The amount of the
claim is $l,03o,0oO, and is awarded to
claimants.
Warfeld We. Chatfee, from Louisiana
Dismissed tor want Of Jurisdiction.
United States Circuit Court.
Presentation. w. B. Woods, Circuit
Judge.
United States vs.. Ferdinand .Duden-
heier.-Embe zz!ement of $4,000 from the
Germania National Bank. On trial.
Supreme Court.
Present-All the judges.
The following opinions were read:
By CHIEF JUSTICE LUDELING.
No. 5Sl2. Louisiana National Bank vs..
Citizens Bank, appellant.-Fr Superior
District Court. On check for $4,000 raised.
ignorantly paid by plaintiff, deposited with
defendant by the New Orleans Savings In
stitution, called in warranty. 1t was raised
before presentation to plaintiff. The ques-
ton is who shall Dear the loss. The court
on foreign bills referred to 10 A., 567; Pars.
on bills, ~. One Of two innocent parties
must suffer. Burrows, 1857; 4 NJ. and S.,
Is; Taunt, 81. BY certifying the check
the bank bound itself to pay the amount it
said was good, and on this obligation the
defendant parted with it's money. 10 Wal,
6i7; United States Bank vs.. Bank OF
GnnrUlA IN Whoot QQ1.
Wal, GOA; l6 N. Y, 1875; - N. Y, $50; ID.
lis. Judgment reversed in favor of de-
fendant.
No. 5475. Succession of Francois Bou-
gere.-Appeal dismissed; See. lS A. GO; &c
Justice Wyly concurs as respect to the
appeal of Mre. Boi, and dissents as TO the
rest.
Justice Morgan concurs in part, but dis
sents to the decree, and also dissents as it
affects Mrs. Boi
No 1872 State ex rel. E. Filleul, testa-
mentary executor, va. A. Durapou, parish
Judge of ST. Charles. See succession OF
Bougere, No. 5475. Prohibition made per-
emptory, the Judgment homolOgating, the
tableau being res jadicata
No. CO.'S. State ex rel. F. E. Dumas vs.
Judge OF Superior District Cour,.-Man-
damus for suspensive appeal refused, the
principal case having been decided against
the relator.
No. 6lO9. State ex rel. s. H. Edgar VS..
Judge Of the Superior District COurt.-The
mandamus for suspensive appeal was re-
fused. The request Tor a prob. bition is not
in aid of this court. Refused.
No 6OSl. Dr.. d. Meng We. parish of St.
Charles, 5. n BCrban, ct als, appellants -
Judgment affiy med with exception of $25
on warrant Of parish jury. Justice Wyly
dissents.
No. 543s. Mary Duncan ys. Michael Dun
can, appellant Fourth District
Court. Motion to dismiss denied.
No. 6045. F. +. Case, receiver. etc, vs. L.
D. Sarpy. appellant-From Filth District
Court. Judgment affirmed with ten per
cent damages and cost of appeal
No. 1859. William Francis Higgins vs.
New Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga Rail
road Company, appe!lant.-From Superior
District Court. The accident was not
caused by misconduct of defendant. Yer,
dict set aside, and judgment reversed in
favor of defendant.
Justice WHY dissents.
No. 1908. Succession Of Bernard Stolz -
This was not vacant succession. The
property could be sold for cash for less than
its appraised value: 7 Louisiana, 3l2, 81;
l3 Louisiana. sc; 10 Rob- $685. IL Rob, SOB,
Justice Taliaterro dissents, considering
the proposition true only when the sale is
on twelve months credit.
No. 1921. Mrs. Apna E. Drouett, appellant,
vs.. Francois LacI DIX From Fifth District
Court. Judgment elsed, case remanded
to be tried on the merits, and defendant
pay costs.
No 46l5. Same VS.. same. See No. 1921.
No 1904 Same vs.. same. See No. 1921.
No $500. F. Del Bondio ct al. vs. New
Orleans Mutual Insurance Association ct
als. appellant.-From Fifth District Court
Judgment affirmed with cost Of appeal.
Justice Howell is recused.
No. 60l6 State Va. Charles Clinton, Au-
ditor, and A. Dubuclet, Treasurer.-Injunc
tiOn on appropriation act No. II of 1875. 1t
is not necessary to consider whether that Of
March 30 or April 3 be the law, for both
contain the came provisions relative to the
Republican Company. A law may be partly
valid and partly void. In this case the ap-
are distinct from each other.
Making an appropriation without providing
is not denied the claim of the Republican
Printing Company is q necessary current
expense. The evidence shows the services
had already been rendered, and the appro-
priations do not exceed the reyenues-
Judgment affirmed.
No 6094 Mrs. Ann Ford. appellant, Vs.
Mrs. Ann kittredge.-From Fifteenth Ju-
dicial District. Case remanded. Judge
Wyly dissents.
BY JUSTICE TALIAFERRO.
No 6066. State OF Louisiana ex rel. Samuel
H. E3gard VS.. Judge OF the Superior Dis
trict Court.-The record shows the acqui-
escence of relator' counsel in the amount of
bond. Rnle dismissed.
No CO.'S. State ex rel. Pierre Joseph Mar
tip appellant, va. Bienville Oil Works.
From Superior District Court. Judgment
declared erroneous and reversed. Man
1uring business hours, access to their DO ,ks.
Justice Howell dissents, and Justice Nor
gan concurs in his opinion.
No. 6ll5. j. NJ. Dagre vs. Mrs. Victor
Paye ct al, appellant.-From Fifteenth Ju-
licial District. On damages for removal of
fence. Verdict of the jury sustained, and
Judgment affirmed.
No. 6O9O Jourdain Sarrie, appellant, vs.
Pierre A. Thibadeaux.-From the Fifteenth
Judicial District. An Injunction impru-
lently granted will not be dissolved when
is plain from the record that the party
would be en- tiled to the writ imm- -diately,
i A., 324; % A., III; 25 A., 222;; ib., 60
Judgment affirmed.
No. 1926. Citizens Bank of Louisiana vs.
drs Widow J. C. de St. Romes ct als, ap-
Superior District Court.
IN stock note. judgment affirmed.
No 6lOO. Aurelie TheriOt, appellant, vs..
J. Prosper Michel.-From Fifteenth Judi
ial District. Motion to dismiss appeal
verruled. On the merits. Plaintiff and p.
:. Michel were not partners, but joint
wners. Is A., %. Judgment affirmed
No. 6l06. Charles F. Gaude vs.. Francois
saude, appellant.-FromF Fifteenth Judicial
district. On account for goods, etc. Judg-
nent affirmed.
BY JUSTICE HOWELL.
No. 1854: John L Lewis ct al vs. w. j.
,1han ct al. appel llants.-From Sixth Dis
riot Court. Injuno ion on Defendants dis
ill+rv IA a nuisauce II ia established nm