The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-04-10
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
NO. 7s9,-sourHTRE MUTUAL INSURANCE CONS
PANY vs.. W. q, P1sE.

TR9i-EpUTHFRE MUTUAL INSURANCE COINS
PANY vs.. W. q. P1sE.
M Wnnninp o. IAN action to compel the
rendition ot an account BY former agent ts
not barred by the presentation Of ten years.
action sud ordering the rendition Of the. ae-
count is not res adtudicnta to . lfhe. plea which
con be eeessfnllg made t9 ne aiiisrent Items
The prescription Of ten years ~ lnapplieable
to demand 90 a former OH or of corpora
lion. or his heirs. for the return Of epeeiho Oh.
eeta such rs he books, papers. ITO. entrusted
to him and It also Ia to IN action TO make him
liable for his failure to, collect notes or other
securities which be should have realiSsd4
NO. 77it-w1pow sCIoNEBAuE VS.. wAguEsPAGH
ET AIS.
Bv Mp,r When property, p portion Of
winch is affected by prior vendors l1en ts
the price. the purchaser ASSUMES The debt due
Ivy his transferer, the whole property. and not
clone the nori9n primarily affected becomes
The assumption by purchaser Of the amount
due by his vendor on account 81 the Original
purchase prics, and represented by the letteF's
notes, does not make the former a party to the
notes. au1 hls assumption creates ~ personal
obligation subject only TO the preserit tion Of
GA years.
MO 7772-srArE NATIONAL BArK vs.. MARIE r.
EVANS AND HusBAND.
Rv UpHlnpc. "A creditor II a succession
has no interest to sue for tbs revocation OF an
order confirming tbs testameptaf executor on
the ground ri the latter's being non-tesident,
when Il appears that the executor is likewise
the universal legatee Of the deceased. and has
In such double capacity Instituted against the
creditor suit. wherein the latter may RECON-
vene. for an amount exceeding the claim which
the creditor alleges that be- holds against the
succession.
NO. 7eAl-sTATE ExiREI. n. q. AMEs VS.. JUDGE OF
SECOND DISTRICT COURT.
Bv DeBlano, j. An nrder overrullng an ex-
eeptlon lled by the administrator OF q success
sion tn opposlions made to bis account not be-
Ing final Judgment nor such an inter loeatory
one as may work an irreparable injury, no ap-
peal lies thetefrOm.
NO. 7678-vAJHNrtHH vBEpENBUReH vs.. W. "a
BEHAN BT All.
BV Spencer, when motion TO dismiss q
snepehslye appeal because some Of the surs-
the court has no authority TO permit the appel
liant to furnish other suretes In lieu of those
held 10 be bad. When bond for suspensiYe
appeal which, when given and tested, was held
bad because If the Insolvency of some of the
sureties, Its insuffloleuey Ia not cured by the
81 bsg srRs BY te % he sppesp a
is thereby reduced to an amount for which the
remaining snreties on the boud would be good.
NO s2ss w. f. PORTER Er AL ys JAo. NJ. sANDIDaE.
Hv Spencer when the two members of q
commercial flrm are both Individually and as
partners indebted to . third person. and
each of the partners takes out policy upon
his own life n favot OF the common creditor,
tbs policy taken out by him to secure his indi-
yldual md partnership debts, and after The
death of either parole evlden g Ia not admiss-
BILE to snow that the policy on bis life was like
wise Intended to secure the nvivsdual liability
OF the surviving rhr ner.
NO. 1883 ALLEN. pUGENT & 90. VS.. A. CARRUTH.
UU White IA waiver Of the benefits of the
hon sstead act Of 1865 may be- validity made by q
debtor In cOnsentiug TO lnurt9aRe on the
property. and when such waiver Ia made the
pt DIVISIONS of that act cannot bs invoked to
prevent The sale Of the property under a fore
closure OF the mortgage.
NO. 7177-ANrA s. MILLER VS.. M. GEORGIA MIL
LEB Ell AL.
~. abr a.
State OF three Of ths subscribing witnesses to q
the will being presented Tor probate, such alb
sence justitles the probate on the testimony OF
ess than three witnesses
An action to set aside the probate OF nuneu-
pattve Will by private set on the ground that
the proof did not show that the will was read
to the testatoT In the presence of the witnesses
II barred by the prescription Of five years.
NO. 7I63-HHfRs OF VIM PORTER VS.. MARGARET
A. HORNsBT.
Bu White. lin u suit TO annnl n succession
sale made by the executor on the ground that
the probate OF the nuneupative will by private
not. from which he derived his powers. was abb
soutely null and void, because not made upon
legal proof, evidence is admissible to- establish
The Formally and validity Of the will.
An executor Is com petent to sell the real es-
tate OF o succession though be have been ap~
pointed without sesin.
The prescription Of ten years bars an action
for the nullity Of probate sale on the ground
that when the inventory Was taken and the sale
ordered there was no attorney tor absent heirs.
The filing OF q statement OF the debts of q
by The executor Is n recognition of
the claims which suspeuds prescription during