The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-03

No. 7ll2. Succession OF Eliza L.. nj lc1aS.
WEDNESDAY. APRIL IT. 1878.
No w. .ase b Daniel paI, Mulisan vs. Louis Vallee
No. esss a " Louis Bassetti vs.. Louis Caboche q,
al. Nnuvet. garnishee.
No. 71ol. Board # Schoo' Directors. parish Of
Concor.tia, va. Jos. Hernandez.
NO 71n2 Board OF School Directors parish Of
Avoyel es. vs JOS Hernandez.
No. 554s. Pike. Brother %. vs. Erastus
No 1854 Southern and Atlantic Telegraph
Company; Of L2nisians vs. New Orleans. Mo
bile and Texas Railroad @ ,mpHnv.
No 1857. Rosalie Mutchler ct al. vs. Bank of
Lafayette.
THURSDAY. APRIL IL, 1873
No 67es Succession OF Henriette Coudreau.
No es1s. Watson Won Benthuysen VS.. Wacker-
barth h Joseph.
No 1894. John H. Catherwood Co. vs.. VIM
III Shepard.
No s7se. Workiogmens Bank vs.. Baise
LANES and Pierre 14annes.
No 1894. Thomas e. Helm vs. Meyer. Weis
No e9a,. State OK rel Board of School Direc-
NJ. $3.50. Demeritt & Dibrell vs.. John A. Finch
ct ais.
Charlotte G. Bellocq, wife, etc.
SATURDAY. APRIL 20. 1873
No. 6s47. State Of Louisiana vs. Alex. Depass
alias Sonny Depasa. and A. Baptisse.
No. 7O66. John z. Burkhardt vs.. John Langles
No TOTO Crescent City Live Stock Landing
and Slaughter House Company w. John Lar.
No ss7,. In the matter Of AIthes Dumontier
pr wing for emancipation.
No. b575. Jourdan Perrilleux Va. Francois
German.
No 55s3. Guy Mcclellan IL Co. vs.. M. Fraen-
Ne. 1894. Mrs. Elizabeth A. Ducros. wife. etc.
Vs. Mrs. Dorothee M. Fleitas ct ais.
Decisions.
MONDAY. April /. 1878
by JUSTICE DE BLANC.
(CoDtinued.l
No. $685. Walter G. Compton VS. VIM. T.. Sand
ford and sheriff. appellants. Appeal from the
District @ ,urt, parish of kapides.
Judgment amended so as to allow 10 per cent
The Chief Justice refused himself In this case
No. 1851. state OF Louisiana vs.. Bill Thomas.
appellant.--Appeal from the district Court,
parish Of Morehouse.
that he description of the article stolen is in
complete and vague must be. urged by domur-
rer and motion to 1nash before the jury il
sworn: Ii cannot be pleaded rs u ground for
arrest of judgment. Under an inform alton for
larceny proof s admssfbl Of the fraudulent
alteration by the accused OF the marks on the
animal stolen. II Ia also competent for the
prisoner to prove that prior to the time OF the
alleged theft he had claimed as his own the ami
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
No. 1920. G. D. Favrot ct al. appellants, vs. the
parish of East Baton Rouge--Appsal from the
District Court. parish Of East Baton Rouge.
The exception of missjoinder of parties and
causes of action must prevail. where several
distinct Judgment creditors Of parish Join In
one mandamus suit to compel the parochial
authorities y to levy tax so for the payment OF
ing to plaintiffs any rights they may have to
proceed proc sio in b proper form: ~ m H..
Hebert Creditors Of Hart & Hebert interyenors
and appellants. Appeal from the District
Conrt. parish of East Baton Rouge.
partnership individ Tally execute their promis-
sorry note to the order Of aud secured by mort
gage in favor Of the, firm Of which they are the
members. third holder can recover on the
does not exist
Judgment affirmed.
on rule against J. Ang ade, adjndicatee and ap-
pellant.-Appeal from the Second District
Court. parish of Orleans.
sion sale cannot, on rnle to compel his COM
plitnce with the terms OF the adju 'ica ion. OBJ
ject that The Judge 81 the probate court having
By judge iee @a hoo The order Of r.onsnto on
snspensiyely. the order will be executed not
parsons under It viii be protected.
pelant- Appeal from the Fifth District Court,
parish Of Orleans. Judgment affirmed.
vs DIR. Leon Ferrier.-Appaal from the Fifth
ri strict Court. parish of Orleans. Motion to
No. 7o14 School Board appellant. Va Emile
J.. Weber. ct als-Appeal from the District
Court. parish of West Feliciana. Rehearing
refused.
No. 7Ois. Mary M Prendergast administra-
trix, vs. George Schantz ct al, appellant!-Ap-
peal from the District Court. parish OF East
Baton juge.
adjudication at a sale made under the conflsca-
ton acts OF Congress. Is not such a possession
rs enables the possessor to Plead prescription
In bar OF an action for the recovery OF the prop
Judgment affirmed.
No, 1908 Succession of Walter o. VIM: on
from the n Parish court. Parish Of R"pdes.'
bind the t Succession s by fling. n The aters alb
sence. a tableau upon which figure debts I'M
known to the executor.
creditors the right to properly adjust their
Chief Justice Manning Reused himself in
No 1921. Narcotic MARTINEZ. widow, etc. ct al.
appellants VS.. Succession of Adoph VvAs.-
App al from the District Court parish of her
vile.
This suit was brought for the revival Of
judgment: a copy Of the petition and citation
were served on the defendant within ten years
from the rendition of the Judgment sought to
be revived A iudg no It by default havingb gu
taken. it was set aside on the ground that the
citation served was defective, it did not state
the number Of days within which the defendants
answer should be filed. A new citation having
thereupon issued. defendant pleaded precrip
ton. the second citation having been served
more than ten years after the orig nal judg
ment had been rendered. Held. That .prescrip-
ton was interrupted by the service of the first
citation.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
BY JUSTICE SPENCER.
No. 1874 John Larriaux 81 al, appellants. vs..
Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Saugh,.
ter house Company-Appeal from the Third
District Court parish Of Orleans. Appeal dis
missed.
No. 1921. John K. Jones. appellant. vs.; the
Church OF Napoleonviile ct al.-Apneal from
the District Court, parish Of Assumption.
When defendants appear in. their corporate