The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-05-24
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
WEDNESDAY, May 20, 1877.
Present: All the Justices.

WEDNESDAY, May 20, 1877.
Present: All the Justices.
CHIEF JUSTICE MANNING.
No. GG40--Hugo Redwitz Va. II. Waggaman,
sheriff, et ais. appellants. Behesripg refused.
No. $685. JOS phi Raymond, appellant W.
Union National Bank OF his.--Hehearing refused
| No G581-Octavie Tremoulet and husband vs.
Mrs. Laurent J. Sigur and AchiIle Sigur, appel.
lants keheariBg refused.
70. 658l-AmeHa Blaeile and husband w. Mrs,
Lanrent J. sigur ct aba.- Rshea'iug refused
No. G5o4-J b. Camor9 Il Co., appellants, VI.
John >. Losch OF al-Appeal from the Sixth Dis
trl Ct, court, Parish OF Orleans.
| Where plaintiffs attorney effects compro-
MISE aud the fluids paid to him by de'endent In
eet,iemeht hereof are garnishted by plaintiff,
encn garnshlnent IL a rshdcati II OF the attor-
| heysao and plaintiff cannot afterwards deny his
| affirmed.
No GGis-Wafson Van Benhuysen vs. Wacker4
barth Joseph, appellants Appeal from the
Fifth District Cont, parish VI Orleans--OL appli-
cation for rehearjBg,
rule OF court o nrary 10 a statutory enact
ment will bs disrs garded A prdmissory note
20 o MT being inc uded anoug those entitled, by
the act Of lsI6, ~ 10 placed upGn the summary
dochet VI this court, no rule of this eourt car,
give them thai pr feren o. hshearing granted.
and case removed from the summary 10 the ordi-
nary docket.
JUSTICE MARI.
No. 29i7-John Hsebe,le, appellant, Vs. Jno Il.
tfist court. parish Of Jefferson.
A personal action asat1st the owner ard mas
ter Ut steamb Dat IN ~ be brought In Justices
| court, and the plaintiff may avail himself Of any
| conservatory process allowed by the laws of the
State to secure and eniotce his demand, but he
must name and cite by name the persons whom
he charges rs owner and captain; otherwise his
proceeding is In rem, AMI can be entertained
only IN the courts OF the United States. Judg-
m Ant reversed.
No. 6l73-Ab Msngn va. Mrs. Nicholas Fsire,
appellant; Eizabeth Mouton. appellant, ys. Abel
MaDgD. Consolidated. Appeal from the Fifth
District Court, p rish Of Orleans.
The action of the agent against the principal
and OF the p,iucif al against the agent, Is subject
to the .prescripti, N OF ten years. Judgment al
frmed.
by JUSTICE DEBLANo.
No. GG32-D. Lsndry vs. Il. Victor A. Bonnet
nterven'r and appellant.-Appeal from the
Fourth Dis riot Court, PARISH OF Orleans.
Tbs surety ON the bond gwen by defendant in
e1ccutory proceedings on IN o peal from the or
der OF seizure ami sal is liable, as well as his
principal, for Tho tfsreuee between plaintiffs
claim aud the ne5 proceeds Il sale Of the mort
gagged pr6D rty, and plant fl having obtained
Judgment against tho principal FIR such balance
may, upon the return nnHa bona, proceed by
Justice MAR dissehts.
No. $3.50 Mrs J. Armstrong Vs. estate OF
Eugene Phillips, interdcttd. appeiant-Appesl
from the Second District Court, parish Of Or
BY JUSTICE SPENCER
No. 5596-4Fiasb, Lewis& 10 vs. Adler b Cold
man, appelants.- Appeal from tie Blk h District
Cout, pari N OF Orleans.
An agreement TO tsure goods shipped, when
not gu aiiied, means that she Insurance is TO be
from the point Of shipment 10 that Of destinsion,
and plaintiffs habit tr custom, not shown to be
known to deendsnts, OF tDi i6suriug part OF the
way cannot control such agreement. judgment
reversed
No. GiG6 China Boutte. wifi, ETC., ct OIL, We. +
executors or Francois 7. Bout O., ct als., APP
plants appeal from tho Second District
Court, parish oi Otleans.
Where husband ana wife join 10 petition for =
appeal the authorization Of the latter to prose
cute the appeal is sufficiently established. The i
executor Is not pecess ~ party to suit for the
pattitii ~ All estsh. Motion I'd disniss refused.
No. 449-Catherine Reille, tntr1x, vs.. State q
Lipe steamship ompaDy. I'm ted, Bppelant-s
Appeal from the Sixth District Court, parish OF 4
Orleans.
The owners of vessel having employed
stevedore Of exhsrence and goJd repute 10 dis
charge her. and having, on his requsition, fur 4
nishf tackle apparently good aud sound, cannot
be held liable ftr injuries Inflicted by the break
ing Of he Jackie IL consequences ef some non-
apparent defect Judgment reversi d.
justice Mari REFUSED.
No. 508i--C,ty OF New Orleans vs. L. Madison
Day, appellant-Appeal from the Superior Dis-
trict court, parish Of Orleans.
After Opposing OF the grounds OF defense, 90
being frivolous the Court says:
"This suit was brt ught against the defendant
In November, 1874, for the taxes Of that year.
On the 9Th OF thst month b. fied bis answer
and on the h December following, bis supple
mental answer. On May 10, 1878, alter evidence
introduced and a,gume mt, the Curt gave judg<s
ment for pl4intiR and defendant appealed. Il
The defendant now In its that however right
the judgment against hin may have been,
il must be red and his suit be dismissed,
b Cause the act 81 III The extra session OF 1877
has PROVIDED me,c mode OF collecting taxes, and
that all laws providing different mode are re-
pealed thereby. Itmny be true that the Legisla1
ture has pr vidfd new mode OF collecting taxes
as stated but it does not follow that that mode
is excu-ive especially relttes to back tsxess
We understand that the essment OF tax
| against an individual creates y perroual debt
against him, as well lien ag sinrt his property
II the pro erty Of tho debtor subject to the lien
be, from any csuse, insufficient TO pay the i
tax he is personally bound and liable as well fort
the whole tax as for any deficiency thereof; and
law or reason Why he may not be sned IN the
courts by he corporation to whom he is indebt-
| ed, and condemned to pay. We understand the
act 96, to provide y speedy remedy as dgntna the
property Hself, but we do not see that 1t takes
| away the right OF the city 10 proceed in the
curts to enforce The PERSONAL obligations
OF its debtors, and inc'dtntsly It's lens
on their property. BIS this as it may,
to back tdIes, and eeems to provide far The future,
and far, therefore. relstes 10 the collection
OF back tdIes the remedies rroc5ded IN former
statutes are not necef sAriiy in conflict with act
96 and, therefore, OF necessarily repealed by it.
| We woud b. 10th to hold to construction OK act
| 9G which would work 81 manifest an Injustice
and injury to the public interest. As we have
| cen there il no Decessary conflict and, there
fore, ss we hold, no repeal OF the right OF tho
city to proceed with her suits pending for dehn-i
quent taxes OF past years" Judgment affirmed.
| ANTHRAX Meeting.
| An ani-ra1 rad tax meeting was held last
evening by citizens OF the Fix egnth aud Seven