The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-30

without rememy, which they may legally in
woke.
REALTORS.
Justice DeBIanc is refused.
No. 7t79. State ex rel. w. +. Schwing, Dis
triCt Attorney, ct al. vs. Judge Sixteenth Ju-
dicial District Court for the parish OF La
fayette.
Appeals in cases under the Intrusion act
must be made returnable to this court, at the
regular place for returns from the parish
where the appeal is taken, though the court on,
may then be sitting at a different place. Inc
law relating to appeals in criminal cases Is
not applicable to this class Of proceedings.
Mandamus refused.
Justice DeBlanc refused.
No 1888 Leopold de Poret VS.. A. l.. Gus
man ct ais, appellants. Appeal from the DIS
trict Court parish Of East Baton Rouge. On
rehearing.
Former decree. affirming judgment Of lower
court, maintained.
BY JUSTICE MARI.
No. 7O97 Louis G. Maclin VS.. State Of Lou
isiana, appellant. Appeal from the Fourth
District Court parish of Orleans. Judgment
No 5000. Paul Leblanc vs. N; G; Selby ct
al, ppellants-Appeal from the Sixth Dis,
trict Court, parish Of Orleans The District
Court has jurisdiction Of a suit for rent
though the rent due at the institution Of the
alleges a lease exceeding that amount, and
prays for judgment for such sums as may
become due hereunder pending the suit.
Judgment affirmed.
BR JUSTICE DE BLANC.
No 1857 Mrs. Anna Watson, appellant, VS..
Winter and Hunter and sheriff. Appeal from
the District Court, parish OF Tensas. On re-
hearing.
Where e2ecutory proceedings are enioined
under articles 739 and TAO G. p, no damages
should be awarded on the dissolution OF the
Former decree and Judgment of lower court
amended by dsallowng plaintiff s claim Tor
damages.
Justice Spencer delivered a dissenting opn-
ion, in which the Chief Justice concurred.
By JUSTICE SPENCER.
No. $500 M. A. Southworth, appellant, vs..
Louisiana Levee Company and John G,
Gaines ct al.-Appeal from the Superior Dis
trict Court, parish OF Orleans.
Ia this cause we granted, on plaintiffs ap-
plicatiOn, n rehearing, and mHhoW setting the
cause dorm for trial thereon, we proceeded to
amend our Judgment by giving an absolute
decree for specific sum, instead Of reserving
plaintiffs rights, as was done in the original
decree. Defendants complain truly that they
were not heard on this rehearing. and that the
decree for money is wholly different from the
former decree, Of which they did not com
| plain. IF defendants were satisfied with the
first decree they were under no obligation to
ask for q rehearing of it. But as they had DC
opportunity to be heard on the rehearing, and
com plain Of prejudice from the judgment
thereon, which materially changed the prertons
judgment against them, we do not think the
rule should be applied which excludes re-
hearing of the Judgment IN so far as II has
changed the previous judgment.
1t Is, therefore, ordered that the decree on
the rehearing in so far as it changes the pre-
vious decree, be set aside, and that rehear
ing be granted solely upon the question
whether under the pleadings and proof II
this record plaintiff is entitled to a money
Judgment for dividends, and that this cause
for that purpose be placed on the docket fol
rehcaring.
Justice Mari delivered concurring opinion
Chief Justice Manning and Justice Egal
delivered dissenting opinions.