The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1877-08-03
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
CHIEF JUSTICE MANNING.

"A Judgment homologating provis-
ional account is not binding on the
minor; he may object to them after
the termination Of the pupilage, even
though the under-tutor was cited and
appeared for him. The plea of res
.j,tdicata cannot be opposed to minor
who was represented by an under-tutor
when an account was filed but as to
the heir who has attained majority Or
married and was cited, aud paid, the
judgment homologating the account
may be pleaded AS the thing adjudged,
and such payments may be pleaded In
bar OF any future action. Art. 355 Z.
&. does not apply to a case where an
account was rendered, and after each
heir, successfully marrying, had 'hesn
cited and received payment; this
would be unjust and a reproach; the
payments cannot be repudiated. Art.
l49 of the Constitution Of 1868 is not AN
act Of grace which made valid judg-
,nents rendered during the late civil
war. The trainers OF the Constitution
of 1868 were not unmindful Of: the .ru l..
that IL government was entitled to Obs-
dience if it had the power to enforce it.
This article of the Constitution was
only the recognition Of the rule, aud
does not iuIpart to Judgments the DUAL
ity of tin,,lity and irrevocability : they
are like other Judgments rendered prior
to 1861. During the late war, where u
tutor exercised extraordinary prudence
III the administration OF his wards
property by husbanding it, he was au-
thorized to expend more for the minor
than his revenue. Judgment reversed,
feserving certain rights. r..aEs.I ,ii
Sarah l.. Lay ct ai. VS.. Cezaine Wall
lace ct li.-AckiOn uyui'ist sM'eEy.-
Wallace was surety on Elias ONeili'S
bond AS tutor. The Judgment against
O'Neill AS tutor Was reversed 10y the
Supreme Court. The foundation OF this
suit is that Judgment. There is now
no Judgment from which liability oi
the defendants arises. Judgment re1
verseu. I.,.." ut apes tt-'
Heirs OF Lay vs.. n. s. Sandidge.-
.Hypothecoy action. = Elias O'Neill's
bond AS tutor was recorded ami .Ope-
rated i. legal mortgage. The heirs ObT
tanned Judgment against ONeiil de-
PENDANT was in possession OF land Cow
cred by the mortgage and was sued as
third posaesSsur. Tho foundation of this
suit is that Judgment. There is no
Judgment now, it was reversed by the
Supreme Court The land is not sub
iect to the mortgage. Judgment re-
versed. f.-...- ,r .g
...I JUSTICE MARI. .,-. s. ...H.
Mary c. Finurnoy and husband vs..
Aionzu Fiournoy, executor, ct al
Jurisdiction action M Parish Court
When u succession, or the heirs. of
one succession sue to recover OF another
succession or the heirs of another sue.
cession, money or property, the suit
must be- brought in the Court having
Jurisdiction OF the amount. The
a mount in this snit beng over $500,
the Parish Court had no jurisdiction.
1t is bad practice to refer an excep-
ton to the jurisdiction to the merits. !
J Judgment affirmed.
JUSTICE EGAN.
l.. a. Weber VS.. Wm. Wilton.-1ftte
to office or .Sherit.-Under the Aneri- !
can system, the whole object of election
laws is to secure the great end OF carry |
ing out the popular will. The funda- |
mental principle OF American and Of
Louisiana law is that it is the casting |
of the votes unimpeded by force or
fraud which determines the result OF
elections, There is a difference between
the act of voting aud the police provis- |
ions to secure the evidence OF the act. |
Where the Supervisor of Registration |
failed to give public notice OF the poll
ing places, the names of the commits |
sioners, issued false and fraudulent GER |
titicates of registration to voters, failed !
to appoint polling places where re-
quired, he was guilty OF fraud and the
casting OF such illegal votes, such AS
those OF convicts aud minors, and his
failure to strike from the registration |
lists the names of voters who had died,
vitiated the election, and such conduct |
defeated the popular will aud changed |
the result of the election Judrment |