The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1877-06-01
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The following important decisions
were rendered in New Orleans, on the
23rd, by the Supreme Court:
No. 1894. j. Il. Canors 4 Co., APP
pellants, VS.. John J. Leech ct nj. From
ST xii, District Court.--When the plain
titf garnisl'tes the proceeds OF IL COM
promise effected by his attorney, in the,
attorneys hands, lie is estOpped from
denying the authority to compromise.
Judgment affirmed.
No. 66ls. w. Van Benthuysen VS..
NVhackerbarth 4 Joseph, appellants.
From Fifth District Court.--A rule Of
| court, placing a promissory note case
| on the summary docket, it not being;
SO entitled to preference by act No. II
OF February 26, 1876, will be- disregard
ed. Re-hearing granted and case placed
on ordinary docket.
No. 2847. John Haberle, appellant,
vs.. John Bnrringer ct al. From Second
Judicial District.-A personal action
may be brought in a justice court
against the master and owner of a
steamboat by naming and citing them
as such, otherwise the proceeding is in
rem and can be entertained only in the
United States courts.
No. 6473. Abel Mangin VS.. Mrs.
Nicholas Faire, appellant; Elizabeth
Mouton, appellant, VS.. Abel Mangin.
From Fifth District Contradictions
between principal and agent are subject
to prescription of ten years. Judgment
affirmed.
No. 66;s2. ID. Landry VS.. r. Victor !;
a. Bennett interveilor aud appellant
From Fourth District Court.-The
surety OF appeal from order of seizure
and sale is liable, with the principal,
for the difference between the claim
and proceeds of the sale of mortgage
property, and after judgment ana pro-
ceedings against the principal for such
balance, Oh the return AatiitG GOntt, the
plaintiff may proceed by rule against
the surety. Judgment affirmed. Justice
Mari dissents.
No. 6466. Celina BOuttt, wife, ct al.
vs.. executors Of Francis r. Boutte, APP
pellants. From Second District Court
Joining Of husband and wife in ii
petition of appeal is Il sufficient author
ization. The executor is not !, neces-
sary party to Il suit for the partition of
ain estate.
No. 1881. City of New Orleans VS..
l.. Madison Day, appellant. From the
Superior District Court.-stThis suit
was brought against the defendant in
November, 1874, for the taxes of that
year. On the fifth OF that month he
tiled his answer, and on the fourth of
December following, his supplemental
answer. On May 10, 1875, after evil
dence introduced and argument, the
court gave Judgment for plaintiff, and
defendant appealed. The defendant
now insists that however right the
judgment against him may have been,
it must now he reversed and this suit
be dismissed, because the act No. 96 Of
| the extra session OF 1877 has provided q.
new mode Of collecting taxes, and that
all laws providing !, different mode are
| repealed thereby. 1t may be true that
the Legislature has provided !. new
| mode Of collecting taxes, as stated, but
it does not follow that that mode is
exclusive, especially as relates to back
| taxes. We understand that the assess
inent of II tax against an individual
creates personal debt against him, AS
well as a lien against his property. II
| the property Of the debtor subject to
! the lien be from any cause insu1i icient
| to pay the tax, he is personally bound
| anu liable AS well for the whole tax as
| tor any deficiency thereof; and if it be
| II debt due by lin personally, we know
| no law or reason why he may not be
sued in the courts by the corporation to
whom he is indebted and condemned
10 pay. We understand the act No. SO
to provide speedy remedy as against
the property itself, but we do not see
that it takes away the right of the city
to proceed in the courts to enforce the
personal obligations of its debtors, and
incidentally its liens on their property.
Be this as it may, the law by it's terms
makes no reference to back taxes, and
seems TO provide for the future, and so
far, therefore, AS relates to the collection
of back taxes, the remedies provided in
the statutes are not necessarily in con-
flict with act 96, and therefore not
| necessarily repealed by it. We would
| be 10th to hold to n construction of act
| 96 which would work SD manifest an
! injustice and injury to the public i'll
| tere,sts. As we have seen, tn. r.. is no
necessary conflict, and, therefore, as we
| hold, no repeal of the right of the city
to proceed with her suits pending; for
delinquent taxes of past years" Judg-
| ment affirmed.
AN ACT
For the prot of game and birds in the