St. Landry democrat., 1880-07-17
Abstract of Decisions Rem dercd by the
Supreme Court.

ceased, sue the defendant 10 annual q settle
ment of partnership, commercialand planting
made between the parties thereto before tho
death of the deceased member thereof, and tc
recover from the defendant $1,000, or so much
thereof as might appear to be due upon a full
and complete settlement of said partnership
Auditors were appointed on the application OF
the plaintiffs. They made their report which
= plaintiffs opposed. On the trial of the cause
the plaintiffs offered documentary evidence
consisting of bills and accounts against the
firm Of keough & Foreman, purporting to have
been paid and receipted; and also offered Il
number Of witnesses to prove sales to the firm
of different lots of cotton, and payment for the
same by the deceased partner. Thsdocumentary
and other testimony Of the witnesses was
rejected, and bills Of exception taken to the
several rulings of the Court on these points.
There was judgment dissmissng the suit, and
plaintiffs appealed. The decision of the lower
court was rendered on the ground that plaintiffs
could not go outside of the partnership books
and report and statement of the experts ap-
pointed to make settlement of the partnership,
without special allegations of error as to each
particular item, which allegations were not
made This testimony should have been adj
mitted. The case is remanded to be proceeded
with according to law.
{. Z. Duson Curator, ct al. VS.. Lastie Dupre
ct al Appeal from the District Court of st.
Landry-C. c. Duson alleging that he is the
curator OF the succession of Louis Blanc, and
T. F. Perrodin, as the attorney of the absent
heirs of the same succession, institute petitory
action against Lastie DuprG and Others for the
recovery OF a tract of land situated on Bayou
aTnip Pyu in
property of the succession which they claim
torepresent. Defendants excepted to plaintiffs
action for want OF capacity in them to sue, on
the ground of the nullity of their appointment
by the Parish Court of st. Landry, for the
following reasons:
1. That Louis Blanc having died in the parish
OF Orleans, where he resided the Probate Court
OF st. Landry had no jurisdiction over his
succession.
q That Louis Blanc having left heirs, residing
IN the State, the probate court could not treat
and administer his succession as vacant estate |
The case was tried on these exceptions. which |
were maintained by the district court, and the
cause dismissed; from which Judgment plaintiffs
appealed.
The principal involved in this case was the
" collateral attack on the Judgment of the
probate court; and the lower court erred in
allowing it," The Judgment of the lower court
is reversed and the case remanded to be pro-
cceded with according to law.
Board of Trustees of New New Iberia VS..
Ernest d. Migues.-Sut brought by the
Board of Trustees of New Iberia before justice
of the peace of said town to recover of the
defendant seven dollars and fifty cents as a
pppsa fay of IL, |
the corporate limits of said town during the
year 1872 Defendant excepted on the ground
hat the occupation of drayman was not included ,
II the objects of taxation enumerated in the act ,
If the legislature incorporating said town. :
There was Judgment for the defendant. The !,
lct of incorporation provides That the trustees
shall have power to raise money by taxation 6
N all property, movable and immovable pro- =
ided the same be equal and uniform in value ,
nd by taxing merchants, retailers, grogshops :,
iliard tables, hawkers, pcddlers, shows, cir
uses, menageries, concerts" etc. 1t is a well
cttled principle of law that the power OF
lunicipal corporation, relating to the imposi- C
ion of taxes and licenses, must he exercised o
'ithin the clear scope of the language of tile N
harter by which this power is conferred. On a.
lis subject Cooley in his work on Taxation m
iys: 1.-The general rule that the powers of a IL
unicipal corporation are to be construed with t.
richness, is peculiarly applicable to the case Of hi
'xes on occupations. 1t is presumed the a
gislature has granted in plain terms all it has m
tended to grant at all. If it is not manifest Fl
lat there has been purpose by the leg oil
lature to give authority for collecting a Il,
venue by taxes On specific occupations, any dc
action for that purpose will be Illegal" "The M
larters or acts of incorporation Of municipal W;
within the State are the measure In
well as the source of their power" "No he
neral power to tax occupations, trades, and co
DECISIONS is conferred by the act, and neither be
Q keeping warehouse or running dray is pa
iOng the objects Of taxation enumerated in Mt
Q charter" Judgment affirmed.
N the matter of succession of Mrs. f. Geisler, fra
opposition of L. Rombach, tutor, etc-Ap- to
nj from the parish of st. Mary.-Opponent wa
this case, as natural tutor of his minor child tba
inns $1,000 from the insolvent succession of ma,
deceased grandmother of the child. under san
provisions Of Article 1852 of the Revised lou
~ -. 2, Uo'o coiiieis upon the widow app
minor children of deceased person, left in
,essitOus circumstances" no other right q
atever except the right, "to demand and lin,
Cifo lIoH tut SuCCcSSiO1 OI EUelf deceased the
her or husband, a sum which added to the sus
cunt of property owned by them or either of ann
m, of their own right, will make up the sum etc
1000, which said amount shall be paid in ans
ference to all other debts, except those for but
vendors privilege and expenses incurred mo,
selling the property" The father of the M
d being alive, he has no right to make this to h
m upon the estate Of his grandmother. tba,
gment reversed, and the opposition of L. The
nbach dismissed. oo,,
may
nos. P. Miller VS.. Ode Montague & Hus-
d.-Appeal from the Parish OF vermilion,- LIZ
is an action to annul q tax sale of sixteen peal
dred and thirty-1ye acres of land De was
liant filed two exceptions: first, that the the
IS, penalties and costs of sale, and taxes nam
Q the sale, which defendant had paid, had did
II been rendered by the plaintiff, which to IL
er is a condition precedent to the insttu- toril
of suit; second, that plaintiff filed no title part
RS, and defendant should not answer until clair
papers are filed. The lower court gave the
ment for defendant. The amount paid by pres
ndant was the gross amount due on large plain
tiles OF land. of which the land claimed by caus