The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-04-03
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
..- MONDAY, April 2. 1871
Present: All the Justices.


by CHIEF JUSTICE MANNING.
No. 6o51-Charlos Maduell. testamentary exec.
utor, ct as, VS.. r. II. Monsseaux OF ala Rehear.
ing refused.
No. 5.6O--Josephise O. Briard va. Tho Me.
chanics' and Traders Insurance Company. Re.
hearing refused.
No. 6455 = R1ods II. Write w. Myria CLARK
Gaines. Rshearing refused.
No. 6533-State OF Louisiana, OK. rel. A. Mer.
cier vs. The Judge OF the Superior District Court
ct oil Rehearing refused.
No. BS46-Robert Worrell ssJames II. Vickers.
Rehearing granted to ascertain IL payment OF
$500 should not be imputed to the rent.
No. 6357-succession OF Francois Lscroix. Be-
hearing refused.
No. G542-Interdiction of Mrs. Pauline Ian
pellant. Appeal from Second District Court,
parish OF Orleans. proceedings for the
interdiction Of . person the opinions OF
medical men who have examined the
proposed interdiot must be weighed with
other evidence, and cannot, alone, guide or in
facta Of the case, and especially the motives of
tho person praying for che introduction. Judg-
meut reversed.
No. s545-Marie L. Beebe, appellant, Va. JAS.
tfict Court. srish Of Orleans. The fact that ci-
tation ofappeal was issued and served before the
fling OF the bond is not good ground for the
dismissal Of the appeal. The discretion granted
in some cases to the judge is sound legal dis
cretion, and this Court will revise the judgment
Of the Judge befow refHsing an Injunction eH q
rule nts to ascertain whether this discretion was
properly exercised Eotion to dismiss refused.
No. 6537-Jacob Strauss va. NJ Soye ct al, ap-
pellants,,1Appesl from the Fifth District Court,
sheriff, signed by him, the purchaser and two wit
nessee is Of itself deed and sufficient proey oil
the purchasers title. Judgment affirmed.
No: 64l3-lre. Eliza Mccormick, appellant
n.-ta:. - II u
Superior DISTRICT Court, parish Of Orleans. The
Third District Court has exclusive jurisdiction to
enjoin seizures made under judgments OF ius.
tices Of the peace, when the value Of the prop
erty exceeds 500. Judgment amended 30 as to
allow damages 70 defendants.
No. 6006-Amsey L.. slawson, appellant, vs..
Robert J. Ker. Appeal from the Sizah District
Court, parish Of Orleans.-plaintiT In at
tachment agreed with an intesvenor, who
was afterward decreed the owner OF the
property attached, that said property be sold
to avoid the expense OF keeping and thst the pro-
ceeds be deposited in the sherif's hands. Plain
tiff subsequently, during the pendenoy Of the
suit, withdrew the funds from the sheriff, fur
nishing bond in lien thereof Held: That the
intervenor can recover from the surety on the
bond. Judgment reversed.
No. 6511-Hibernia National Bank OF New Or
leans vs. N. Watson, appelank-Appeal from the
District Court, parish OF st. James. Judgment
was rendered against defendant, the endorser OF
pAOLuleoOtJ AoSoS Ny SossAAaeasb AniAA-
tiff should have proved that the postofice to
which the notice Of protest was mated was the
neareet to the endorsee's domicile. Judgment re.
versed, and case remanded.
No. 5i70-Turner, Wilson b Co., appellants, vs..
W. W. McMain ct als.-Appeal from thu Fourth
District Court, parish OF Orleans. On rehearing.
Where prescription has been interrupted by cita-
tion it does not again begin to until the suit
is finally disposed OF in some manner. Former
decree set aside, aad judgment rendered as to
Mrs. FrieTson.
BY JUSTICE MARR.
No. 5355-Hunt Il Macauley Vs. Mississippi
Central Railroad Company. appellant. Appeal
from the Fourth District Court, parish Of Or
leans. Plaintiffs received from their correspond
ents in Mississippi bills OF lading for SO bales Of
cotton shipped by defendants road, aud made
advances thereon. II appears that only % bales
were received and delivered by the company, a
duplicate bill Of la5ing having been issued by
their station agent in error. Plaintiffs ncw seek
to recover from the railroad the value OF tho 10
bales, for which the receipt was thus enormously
given. This case is not like that Of stranger MAX
ing q shipment and obtaining advances thereon;
for plaintiffs were the regular agents Of the con-
slgnOrs, and the latter cannot be allowed to take
advantage Of the error Of the carrier. 30 much
OF the bill Of lading aB is receipt may be ex-
planned by parole testimony, and it may be shown
that the goods were never delivered 10 the car
risr. Though negotiable, 1t differs from bill oi
exchange u this: That tho indorsee only takes Il
with the rights sgainst the carrier q 4
conieEyed on the original constknee. ~