The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-11-04

of June /, 1879, to limit the power OF the courts
81 tho United States to enforce their judgments
BY execution BY, imposing np9n them the re-
srRints and limitations provided Ia particular
cases In the State law. tseems 70 me clear that
II was not. The language 81 tho section i'm
plies an enlargement and not n limitation, upon
The powers Of the Federal courts
The Federal courts having already. by OK.
press enactment, the power 20 ISSUE executions
to enforce their Judgments the section referred
Fed..,rM courts. the plaintiff anal 10 entitled to
similar romedie, bg attachment O. other uro.
ceRa, as are provided by tbs lava pf tho State In
which the court IN hold, and TINT tho party ra-
celying Judgment in snid courts shall ba enti
tied I'd similar remedies npon tho anne BY exc
OF the State In which the court IL hcl1. > he
clenr PURPOSE Of this enactment HI ~ enlarge
and not to restrain the rights nf the plaintiff
and Judgment creditor. u must have haan far
from tho contemplation of Gungress hat tho net
would BIZ used AZ u denial " tho right ~ plain
TIL In certain cases TO Issue any execution what
ever and as u consequences denfal ot THIS right
70 the writ OF mandamns 10 compel the satsfae-
The law on tho statute book Mt the time the
act Of June |. 1872 was pnst Oh gave tho Federal
courts The power to Issue tho writ Of execution
on all their judgments tho act of 1872 was
merely intended ~ enlarge that power, and to
entltle, tho plaIgtiIf 10 execution t. I'll other
the property Of tho defendant Ia execution. i
was an act snlargng and not restraining tho
powers q the United States courts M, ard tho rem
been uniformly held In this district. Bee City
OF New Orleans va John A. Morris.
The fact that the defendant haa filed his judg-
mont with the Administrator OF Public Accounts
for satisfaction. In the manner pointed out by
the State law, does not preclude him from
serving out his writ Of fep,i fncas-lf bis judg-
remedies. He Ia not to be put to his election.
nor by adopting one ts he tn any manner
estoppsd from reSorting TO tho other. sati-ihn-
tion Of his Judgment. either actual or con
structiye can prevent bis resort TO tho writ OF
The result 81 theae views Ii that the applica-
ton for tho writ or Injunction must DO denied
.#~=-.@ ORDER:
United States Circuit Court (sa4n. City 81
New Orleans Va. Thns. Pickles ct ais This
cause came ON to be beard upon tue mot Ion OF
the complainant for M nteilneutory order ~
reoting that the writ Of Injunction pendenfe ~
al prayed for In the bill lsaue against tue 10
PENDANTS. and was argued by council OF both
parties. On consideration whereof the under
signed before whom said motion was made. y
OF opinion that said Injunction cannot Do a.
lowed. nc IN, therefore. ordered and ieCraed that
said motion b. and tho snme - hereby over
ruled. and that said writ 81 Injunction be re-
fused at tho costs Of the com painant;
W III WOODS Circuit Judge.
The clerk will enter the foregoing order MT
aafis m,ifdndts LII tho following named casaa. III
which similar Wo,9n W W1Ie Wrnn mi adne
No, aB4b City of New Orleans vs. Emily y
Williamson OF ala
M. ss4T. Same W. Carnon Nudge OF ala
No. ss3T Same vs. Emma 3. Jones Of ais.
No $500 Same w. AIT Mhrchnna ct nj.
No 1896. Same VS.. Charles ". Hornor ot ~.
No $500, Same Va. a. Il. Montgomery OF ala:
No $500 Same va Charles u Rathbone OF ala
Miller, stoptenhnrsh y peekh ~ W ct nus, a,,
No. ss4s. Same va henry Bier ct as.
M 1896 Same VI. y. II. Gnbernator ct MIS-.
No. 1914. Same vs.. W. = Peterkin OF al.