The People's vindicator. [volume] (Natchitoches, La.) 1874-1883, 1879-07-05
Supreme Court Decisions.
NO. 73l5-J. W. BLACK vs. GOOD ~
TENT TOW-BOAT COMPANY.

BY Manning. C. J.-There are two
kinds or f",ms Of injunction; that
called the remedial, which prohibits
or restraints one from doing Il certain
act and that termed the judicial or
mandatory, which commands Ger.
tain act to be done.
An injunction can be issued IN
Hmine, gu the er parte application If
the complainant, only IN the pr"Iibi
tory or remedial form. The judicial
or mandatory injunction can issue
only after trial upon the merits Of
the controversy.
NO. 1851. A. FERNANDEZ, ExEcU.
TOR, VS.. EDWARD MoRPHY.
BY Manning, g. J.-When printed
briefs are not filed in support Of an
application for rehearine, AZ required
by the rule Of court, the rehearing
will be refused.
no. 7245-AMEDEE TESTART VS.. NY
POLITE BELOT EFT AL.
By Manning c. J.-Whcre a man
and wife conceal the relations aud
hold the latter out to the world 40 a
femme sole. they cannot attack a mort.
gage granted by her upon property
purchased 10 her own name on the
ground that the property really he
I"nged to the community, or that the
wife was not properly authorized to
execute that mortgage.
Though one If the contracting par.
ties in a simulated conveyance CAM
not assail the verify Of the contract
by parol evidence, but only by
c"unter. letter, his creditor is not
hamprred by the same restriction.
Thus when a simulated sale has
been made and the pretended vendor
subsequently mortgages the property
to a third person, such person can,
in proceedings to forecl"se the mort
gage, prove by parol the stimulation
and faIsity Of the sale, and that the
real title was in his mortgage at the
date his rights accrued.
Suci. par"l evidence ia admissible
no, only against the vendee 1T tho
simulated sale, but likewise against
subsequent purchasers If the pr"l'er>
~, VII" have acquired It with a
knowledge of tie stimulation Of their
vendors title.
NO. 576O-BARNEY GOLDEN vs.. CHA's.
MORGAN.
By Mari, Jan employer is not
liable f"r damages suffered By one Of
his employees through tho negligence
If another, unless it he shown that
the employer was to blame for not
providing proper machinery aud ap-
pIiances, or for not retaining CON-
petrut w",kmen.
The fact that a rail, DAD train ran
off the track does not create such
prima tac,e case Of negligence and
want Of skill in the engineer AZ {"
throw the bu,den Of proof on the
employer to show the use Of Prope'
skill and prudence.
no. 743l-J. A. FERNANDNz, ExECU-
TOR, vs.. EDWARD MORPHY.
BY Mari, j. The acceptance by
less", Of the lessee's n"te, endorsed
hy "a third person, for the amount o
rent due. does not create a novatio'
Of the debt, Of destroy the right u
pledge given by law to the lessor.
NO. 5o3o-w. A. BARTLETTE VS.. c.
WHEELER EFT AIS.
BY Mari, j.. The court within
whose jurisdiction the property Of ~
absentee is situated alone has thu
power to appoint a curator ad hoe t.
represent him, and Judgment render
ed contradictorily with the curator
may he executed IN that property.
A curator ad hoe may validity &C
knowledge, in his pleadings, service
If petition and citation, aud ouch &C
acknowledgement brings tue defeodan
iutO court.
When the defendant, prior to tn
signing II a Judgment rendered con
nadictorily With the curator appoint
I'd tn represent him, mOves tn &c
aside the Judgment for want Of jur,s
dic,ion, snch appearances cures th'
defect il there has 1een % citation.
The order Diminishing that rule !
res adjudictata against y subsequen
action for the Ou|lity Of the jadg
meDt for want of jurisdiction.
NO. 1852. E. SMITH vs.. MRS. F. N
POOL.
Bv De Blanc, J.-Actual delivery a
movables transferred under q datio
en- Placement is essentially necessary t
validate the contract ~ against thir'
persona.
Az long as the movables thus give
in payment are mixed with and ~
separated from others Of . like chat
acier, and be Earring the same mark
which. belong to the vendor, the
may be seized and sold under execu
ton issued against him by q thir
person.
NO. 7@6-w. p. o'HERN vs.. HlBERNl
AN assurance COMPANY EFT AIS.
By DeBlanc, J.-Upon tho disso
luton Of an injunction which eDjoir
ed the execution Of . money judl
ment bearing interest at the rate I
3 per cent, not moro than u per cef
in addition tt that interest can I
allowed % damages, 10 the abseo,
Of proof that . greater amount (
, damages has been suffered by Il
wrongful issuance Of the injunction
,, NO. 1892 SUCCESSION OF HUG
x'CLosxE,.
By DeBlaac J.-When sever,
pieces of property belonging to
d, succession IRE cold upon the coDditit
4 A. g.