The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1877-07-20
suPsE4Ei cousF!DEcIs1oSs.


sUPREAE; NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
CHIEF JUgTICE MANNING.
Succession Of +. 2. Grace; IN oppo-
sition.-No appeal lies from an order
continuing q cause. Appeal dismissed.
State VS.. Moses Harrison.-Under
the statute Furnishing II person for cut
- ting or biting of al, ear with Intent to
main, 1t is necessary to support the IN,
dictment that there must be a ssbiting
off, which must be Of the whole or 2
part of the ear. Judgment reversed
and prisoner discharged aot
Bayly & Pond vs.. f. A. Givens.vl
The rule that u party who depies his'l
signature. Is barred from every other
defense, is inapplicable to n case where !
he denies the genuineneas Of the sigma
ture of his agent. Judgment reversed.
Betty A.Thornhill ct al.vs. Edmund
,sL.lBurthe.--A description in AN act OF
mortgage is good, although the ssrange''
is not properly given, ana where the
90 number Of acres is given, and where
further recital is made that the notes
secured by the mortgage represent the
original purchase price, and the act Of
sale further designates the land by
reference to the title Of the vendor
from his vendor, the date OF which rs
given. Judgment affirmed.
CO. VIM. Marbnry, Jr.., and NJ. Slaugh-
ter, testamentary executor, and l.. ID.
McLain, executor, vs. James r. Pace.
Suit to revive Judgment. In such
case, the only question is, Is there a
judgment to be revived? The object
Of the law is to make judgments pre-
scriptible, not to provide new mode
- of annulling them. w neither AIN appeal
- - tive OF, suspensive, its tendency does
not deprive the plaintiff who obtained
it from institutipg his action for its re-
vival and citing defendant. Judgment
affirmed.
Succession of G. b. Thompson oppo-
AsitiOn' of heirs to final Iaccount.-An
opposition to an account is the form Of
action TO be pursued to annul pur-
,sa chase by one who is said to be. an in-
,terposed person whose purchase Is for
the benefit of AN administrators who
~ss*A'Aos k'sAA~aAes'7Ss 0NAE9uAEAl IoVoFScu,
opposition sustained, and right reserved
to heirs to institute an action of nullity
Of sale made by administrator.
q. w. Marlborough, administrator,
VS.. r.. Bianks.-Defentlant was sued
for merchandise alleged to have been
thought by him. from ia vendor whose
title had been declared null for fraud
by the Supreme Court. He filed an
answer setting up special defenses and
afterwards filed a peremptory exception
that PLAINTIFFS petition disclosed no
capse Of action, and that he was not
made u party to the revocatory action
instituted against r. II. Cottingkaln,
the original debtor, and U. Getting
ham, his vendee in FRAUD. Held, such
joinder was unnecessary. Held,
further, ssThere would seem to be an
= Inconsistency in answering a petition
~ by setting up a defense to the action,
and afterwards excepting to that petit
aestion on the ground that it did not set
:. - forth any cause Of action" Judgment
.la reversed and cause remantletl. si|s. -'
.Si - .s.ta ,.l JUSTICE MARI. . .ei..s.E
80, J.H. Reinbold VS.. J.. II. Labelling ct
t al..-The individual members of a cor
poration cannot be held liable for a
debt due by the corporation. Judgment
for defendants. .-,..g.
J. =. White vs.. f. A. Givens.AThe
homestead is exempt from seizure, and
whether defendant in execution has
other property, or whether he has made
fraudulent or fictitious sales of other
-. 60 property, is not the question. Judg-
ment affirmed, giving White damages
for illegal seizure. ,,r ..-.-......
Adeline Edwards, administrators, VS.. |
Sam Whited.-During appeal in the
Supreme Court one; of the parties died
no revival was made. Held, the judg- |
ment rendered. by the Supreme Court !
was ain absolute nudity, ana surety on