St. Landry democrat., 1880-07-17

IL from making the mnnd00sus percmptory, n
Z, Versed appellee to pay costs of both courts
II. Patout ct al. VS.. Mrs. E. E. Talbot ct n
Il Appeal from the Parish of Ibcra-Continue
c till next term.
, c. N. Ealer President of tho Board of scho,
, Directors, vs. a. MillspauSh ct al. Appct
y from the Parish of St Landry.-Thc Board q
School Directors of the town of Washington
, claim from the defendant Mil!spaugh, as sue
! Treasurer, and from Ebert CAN'T his surety
the sum of S1429.5G, received by him in tina
capacity, from the State treasury, for the us
of he public schools of that town. Defcndan
does not deny the receipt of the money, bu
, AYERS that it was paid out by him "strctly i,
accordance with the requirements of the law
The surety, CAN'T, denies any Indebtedness
The evidence shows that Millspaugh received tn,
money, and that the President of the BOart
drew warrants against it, on the treasurer
amounting to $500, which were paid by him
| leaving $500 to he accounted for The defend
ant has not justified the disbursement of the
$500 which he bound to account for His
surety CAN'T is liable IN SOiIO for tho payment
of said sum. The judgment Of the lower court
was for S54s.3l. This jud gncnt is amended by
allowing plaintiff to recover from defendants
! IN soiido the sum Of 1863, and that so amended
| it lac affirmed, reserving to defendant what
right of action he MAY have, if any, to claim in
different proceeding from the plaintiff this
| SUM of 5000; appellants paying costs i'll both
courts.
! Thomas c. Anderson VS.. his Creditors Ap-
peal from the Parish Of st. Landry.-The plain
| TIT. submitting a lillian n thn of hi
assets and liabilities, alleging his solvency but
embarrassed circumstances, ana expressing a
desire to obtain relief from his creditors, applied
for Respite. All proceedings against him
were stayed. meeting of creditors was
held. Some opposed the respite and some
favored it. process terbm of their deibera-
tons was filed in court. The homooeation of
it was opposed by some. Plaintiffs counsel
opposed the trial Of the opposite ION to its homolo-
CATION on the ground: that there were no liti-
giants before the court; that there were no
issues presented to the court that the oppos-
ton show no canse of action. The court sus
tanned the objection and dismissed the opposi-
ton To the ruling OF the court a bill of exccp-
ton was taken. Subsequently Judgment was
rendered III the case i'll favor of plaintiff, and
the opposing creditors appealed To entitle an
"pp4it'tt lol 1t htsI'llc, 10 inc ItilC1, he must
obtain the majority OF votes, in number and
amount, of all his creditors. The application
for Respite is inchoate until it has been |
granted. This only occurs when the court has |
granted II without opposition on the part of |
the creditors, or after unaValillg opposition. 1t I
is only after a final decree has been rendered |
that the Respite is granted Or refused. The
lower court erred i'll ruling as it did The oppo
sition should be proceeded with at the instance
OF the opposing creditors when called for trial
Judgment reversed; that the objection made
to the taking up for trial the Oppositions be
oyerruled; and that the case be remanded for
further proceedings according to law-applicant
paying costs of both courts in case the Respite
be refused.
Estate of John Spcyrcr cx rel. A. Ortego ct al,
tutors, VS.. Clara Thantan, admx. Appeal from
he Parish Of st. Ludry.-Joln Spcyrer died
eaNlnS an estate i'll community with his widow,
lara Thantan, and issue of said marriage
The minors represented by the rclator are grand
children of speyrer and Thantan, and heirs of
deceased The widow as administrative holds 5
'ohSeSsloh OF the community property; half
II which, belonging to her husband S succession !
he holds as usufructuary during her natural +
lie, or until she marries again. The heirs re-
resented by Ortego demand that she should
I've security as such usufructualy. This ques-
ION Is no longer an open one; it has been twice l
eclded that such usullllct is legal one and Il
he usufruct1,ary is not bound to give security t
Judgment affirmed, at appellants COSTS f
.. Dclahoussaye vs.. Maraist FOurnet g. Co. "
ppnal from the Parish of st. Martin.-This a
81 S f.l-n |
efendant rendered by the Parish Court for fl
f65l5, III proceeding by rule instituted by d
lie plaintiff against the defendant who is the O
ppellaht. Appellee moves to dismiss the APP ri
eal on the ground that appeal lies in such il
Use anu from such Il Judgment from the Parish ST
ouft to the Supreme Court. The record dis it
oses the extraordinary case of a summary Il
'oceedlng Instituted and prosecuted to judg- W
eht Tor an amount far beyond the jurisdiction W
that Court. Even were 1t necessary to seek &C
ilef by an appeal to any court from judg- re
cnt which is absolutely null On its face it is fl
ear that this court can not entertain the
peal Dismissed with costs
j. W. Bnrbrdge d Co., VS.. Thos. C. Anderson =,
al Appeal from the Parish of ST. Landry y.
lis is an action on promissory note, execu- -
i ny Anderson and endorsed by Ebert CAN'T ~,
d protested for non payment at maturity. -
'fendants first filed a general denial, and "
EDWARDS offered to file an amended answer in ~
llcll was alleged a want of consideration for -
reason that at the time the note was exc ~,
tel plaintiffs owed Anderson $500 for State -
hds sold for his account by them and on ,a
count of cotton refunded to them by the
leral government for Anderson; and asked J
trial by jury. The District Judge disallow- PEI
the amended answer, and refused the trial in
jury, and on trial rendered Judgment for dis
lntlffs. Defendants appealed Nothing in Pre-
note sued upon, Or in the record shows hat pc;
lntffs were party to it. 1t was negotiable COZ
is character and on proving the signature TIL
lie endorser, the bearer is presumed to be cas-
'o"" .hdc holder, until the contrary be proven.
indebtedness of plaintiffs to Anderson can /
affect the consideration of such a note: and 81.
le Indebtedness consists of an authenticated aga
oent, 1t could not be set up in compensation Ma
INST It, The amended answer was properlv dn'
lllowed. trial by jury would have been app
ana nugatory, and the district judge prop cas-
refused it. Judgment affirmed, with costs MS