St. Landry democrat., 1880-07-17

y
T. FRANCES Barnes to Samuel L. Randlett tuto,
ana the pcrpetuatiOl of the Injunction AS f.
, catherine L. Randlc5t, and in these respect
that it be reversed: and that as to Catherine
u Randlett the Injunction he dissolved and th,
appellees have the right to sell her uudivide,
u flftll interest in the property seized: and in al
u other respects the said Judgment of the lowe
II court he affirmed, and the appellee, Catherine
/, f. Randett, do pay eue-tifth and the a,peIlaut
Ii fo'ir-hfths of the costs of both courts
otto q Weber ct al. vs.. &. r. Harris ct al
: Appeal from the Parish of Ihcria-This is :;
SUIT to annill tax safe. Judgment of the lowe,
. court WAS i'll favor of plaintiffs, and defendants
= appealed. Judgment affirmed with costs.
y vincent Boasn VS.. Thomas c. Anderson rt
. al. Appeal from st. i.antlry.-This is a suit ON
e TWO rrolnIssory notes for $1S4G.19 each Defend
ants hrst pleaded general denial then offered
an amended answer, alleging partial want and
nature or consideration by reason of certain
lhueotc'tnosS OF plaintiff to defendant. and
asked for trial by jurz.. This was disallowcl bv
me court. An amended answer WAS then Of
lered containing the same ALLEGATIONS of iudcht
eohcsS and pleading same in CONDENSATION
which was also refused There was Indictment
lof pIllnttf and defendants appealed That an
amended answer alleging IL want of fai)ure. of
consideration can not he allowed after Il nlca
or general denial, is no longer an opeu oucstinn
but the second amended answer containing
only pleas of compensation should have been
allowed to the extent of certain claims. and
| defendant was entitled to a trial by iurv
Judgment reversed and ease reminded for
further proceedings according to law, plaintiff
to pay costs of appea
f. a. oEnoneand W Mrs Amarante Schcx-
| haydre. Appeal frcm st. Marv.-Aurustc
b'sl''llc dlcu, leaVlngI widow. Amarantc Schcy-
ntydfe, ana two lnilinr Children f. A Sim
ohcalo, claiming to be surviving commercial
partner OF deceased, applied to be appointed
| administrator of his estate The widow
opposed his appointment and was .,ppojnted
aolhlilistratrlx. Sinclieaud then applied TO br
appointed lIuldator If the partnership The
WHO" opposed his appointment as lipuidator
Oh the ground that there had been no pa,tner !
SNIP Tie lower court sustained her opposition
anu oiilioneaud appealed. The ONLY nuestion |
10 DE considered is as to the existence Of the |
commercial partnership The testimony cs |
ttohslles inc existence OF a partnership Sim |
oheauo fad no right to be administrator of
Desii'ttes estate, but nc is entitled to the linui
oatloh OF the partnership affairs Judgment
alflr1hed IT'S to Mrs Sciexnaydre being admin
lstratllN' ana reversed as to its DERIVING Sim
ohea'td OF the Hbulda'ion of the partnership
affairs; and appellee TO pay costs of appeal.
j. L. a. ii. M. Payne 4 Co. VS.. He0se Doiean
Appeal from st. Lanslry,-The plaintiffs were
Jtdlclally recognized as creditors of the success
sion OF A. h Hawkins contradictorily with thc
"'lch't'lit as administrators. BY the Judgment
holloiogatlnS the account presented bv her
the! were 10 receive ts Il pro rutu Of the funds
III hef Hands the Sm of S262936 FROM thar
judgment the administrative took an appeoi
which has just beer dismissed The lower
court recognized the claim which the plaintiffs
no" urge against her i'll her individual capacitv.
Inc plaintiff had three remedies 1st to compel
hef us Administrative Ia pay them cd to proceed
against Her slretles GA her official bond: 3D. to
'ocfcc payment out OF her individual propcrty l
lley chose the latter remedy. Judgment af
irmed with costs. y
Morgals La. and Texas Il. T. and Steam c
snip Co. VS.. Boulder u Bellessen. Appeal from (
st. Mary.~-Ihc matter i'll dispute not exceeding {
looo tllls court has no jurisdiction and it is Z
transferred to the circuit court i
Estate of j. r. Hawkins ex rel j. II, & U. NJ
'ayne " Co. VS.. Hel'ise Deean, ;tdlnx An t
zeal 1rom st. LandrY.Thc plaintiff and ;npel b
ees move to dismiss the dcvolutivc appeal
AIKEN by defendant i'll her official CAPACITY.
rom a Judgment amending an account of adj u
presented by her, by which she VI
vas charged with mors, than she accounted for. +
no was denied the entirety of a personal claim IL
'hlcn she lau set up against the estate The y
rst part OF the Judgment increasing the assets .,
lrectly. was i'll fayOg of the succession and -
ne or which she, as administrative has no u
Sht to complain. The second part of the Fl
ldSment likewise increased the assets of the Fl
accession indirectly, by reducing her claim d
went against her Individually and was not 5,
lerefore against the succession. The estate CT
as thus benefited and not injured 1t is only pl
hen Il Judgment is rendered by which q She p;
,Sslon can be aggrieved, that /; succession y;
can, i'll his official capacity appeal I'LL
ON the same. Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Lucinda R. Stephens, widow, tutrx. ct ais d,
y Ernest Morrow. Appeal from St Landrv.- ii,
his Is silit for tract of land which plaintiff A
AIMS belongs to the estate of her deceased nj
lspand, Ira Thayer, and in possession of ue
'tendant, her title being a patent of the lo
nted States. Evidence shows plaintiff re- OF
lved the patent ill 1875 and that the land VI
me down to defendant by successive sales eV
lsinally from Ira Thaycr in 1886 The lower ~ q,
urt gave Judgment for defendant, Tlayer in un .
ling the land Invested himself of any title to e.,
and his representatives are bound by his I'll.
is Judment affirmed. no
James NJ. Thompson VS.. Llldger Lemellc. Ap- u
al from st. Landry.-Judgment for plaintiff op
lower court; defendant appealed. Appeal oo'
missed for want of jurisdiction, without CO.. 'i,'
,jutlice to the rights of the appellant to an H..
IL, within the time prescribed by law, to the mo-
lrt having jurisdiction in the case. MOTE ~
e reporter could not get the decision III tins wa
Re i'll time to make synopsis. Lee
!. A. Guilbeau vs. E. DGticse Arfteal from a''
Martlli.-Guilbeau obtained a Judgment
inst DttieSc for the sheritf"s office of ST.
rtin; Detiege did not appeal but Chas.
Jr the holdins-ovcr sheriff, did
zeal. He had not the proper interest in the r