Volume 18 — Louisiana Reports

APPEAL EEOM THE COMMEECIAt C0TJET OF NEW ORLEANS. This is an attachment suit. The plaintiff alleges that D. and. J. B. Walker of Mobile, lately trading tinder the firm of Walker, Knight & Co. in New Orleans, are indebted to him jn tj10 gum 0£ $J000. That they have a large interest in a cargo of log-wood consigned to J. Roberts & Co.'~in New Orleans, which he attaches and prays judgment for the amount of his claim.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.</p> <p>This is an action to compel the defendant, Henry Parish, to deliver up a bill of exchange, in his possession and deposited in the Canal Bank.</p> <p>The plaintiffs allege they agreed to sell the defendant a bill of exchange for $1450, drawn by Picket, Banks & Co., on •John B. Diggs, and by the payees and these petitioners endorsed, to be paid for immediately in Mississippi funds at par; and which was delivered to the defendant, who has failed to com-nlv with bis engagement; having only paid $500. They pray , . . that the hill be delivered np to them as their property, or in default thereof, that the defendant pay to them the sum of $950; and that they have a privilege on the bill or its proceeds to secure payment.</p> <p>The defendant, after pleading the general issue, admitted the purchase of'the bill and payment of $500; and for the remainder, avers he transferred, to the plaintiffs, a debt due to him by the commercial firm of E. B. Cook & Co., of Vicksburg, which he states they agreed to receive according to certain arrangements and circumstances, &c. He further shows that he has suffered damages in the sum of $1500, by the sequestration of the bill in question, which he claims in reconvention.</p> <p>Upon these pleadings and issues the case was tried.</p> <p>The plaintiffs offered no proof, but relied on the admissions of the defendant in his answer.</p> <p>The district judge, however, decided that the admissions in the answer could not be divided ; but must be taken entire; and although they admitted the purchase of the bill, they at the same time showed its payment. There was judgment against the plaintiffs, in the main suit, and in favor of the defendant for the amount of the bill, on the reconventional demand.</p> <p>The plaintiffs appealed.</p> <p>insisted that the judge a quo erred in deciding that the admissions in the defendant’s answer, must be coupled with his statement of facts tending to show his own right to the draft sequestered. This rule does not apply to the admissions macje in the pleadings, but to answers to interrogatories only. Were it otherwise, the debtor who admits the debt and pleads payment or other matter in discharge, might require his admission and plea to be taken together. Code of Practice, art. 477.</p> <p>2. The judge a quo erred in refusing to strike out the plea in reconvention. There was no connexity, and the plaintiffs cannot be said to reside out of the state, when one of them resides in New Orleans. The amendment of 1839 is not applicable. Ads 0J. 1839)^ 164; sec_ 7></p> <p>3. The evidence of the plaintiffs’ liability is insufficient. It was no fault of the plaintiffs that the draft was not protested. The sheriff should have had it protested. There is no proof of the acceptors insolvency.</p>

APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP TIIE FOURTH DISTRICT TOR THE PARISH OP POINTS COUPEE, THE JUDGE OP THE 2d DISTRICT PRESIDING.

APPEAL PROM THE COURT Of THE FOURTH DISTRICT FOR THE PARISH OF POINTE COUPEE, THE JUDGE OF THE SECOND PRESIDING. .

APPEAL PROM THfc COMMERCIAL COURT OP NEW ORLEANS. This is an attachment suit against the goods and effects of an absconding debtor. The plaintiffs show they are creditors of Wm. R. C. Hays, for merchandize sold and delivered according to a detailed account, and balance due on a note, which are annexed; amounting to $1180.

This is an action by the descendants of the brothers and sistejs of André Bernard, living in France, who sue as his heirs and legal representatives to recover a lot of ground situated in Chartres street, New Orleans, and in the possession of the defendant, who claims it as owner.

This is an action to recover from the defendant the sum of $244 80, for moneys overdrawn by him as clerk of the plaintiffs, over and above his salary, which they allege was only $1000 per year. The defendant sets up an account against the plaintiffs, charging them at the rate of $125 per month for eight months, amounting to $1000 ; for which he prays judgment in recon- . vention.

APPEAL PR03X THE CITY COURT OP NEW ORLEANS. This is an action on a promissory note. The defendant admitted bis signature, but averred the note was given for goods unmerchantable, and that the consideration had failed. A supplemental petition was filed; to which the defendant replied, that he admitted his signature but denied all consideration. There was judgment against him and he appealed.

AMEAt FROM THE COT COOHT OE NEW ORLEANS. This is an action against the maker of a promissory note. The defendant admitted his signature but averred the consideration had wholly failed. There was no attempt to support the defence by proof, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs; but from the record it does not appear to have been signed by the judge. The defendant appealed.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE PIRST DISTRICT.</p> <p>This case commenced by an order of seizure and sale, on a mortgage retained for the price of a slave, evidenced by the defendant’s note.</p> <p>The defendant took a rule to set aside the proceedings, on the ground that no copy of the petition in the French language had been served on him which was his vernacular tongue. On the trial the plaintiff obtained leave to' amend in this respect, on payment of ebsts up to this time. He was proceeding with his seizure, when he was arrested by a second rule, to have the order of seizure set aside on the ground that the costs of the amendment had not been paid. This rule was discharged and the defendant appealed.</p> <p>prayed that the judgment discharging the rule, be affirmed with ten per cent, damages.</p>

APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF PROBATES FOR THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW ORLEANS» This is an action on a judgment rendered in Virginia against the estate of Henry De Ende, who died during the pendency tif said suit.

APPEAL PROM THE CITT COURT OP HEW ORLEAHS, This is an action against the maker of a promissory note, to which there was no defence. Final judgment was rendered on the plaintiff’s showing. The defendant appealed.

E .COUjRT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This is an action against the maker and endorser of a promissory note for $228 75, and interest. Wheaton, the maker of the note. admits his signature, hut .avers it was given in part and for the price of a slave which he purchased from the plaintiffs for the sum of $610. He further states that he paid part cash and gave his two notes, (the first of which is now sued on) for the price.

<p>Judgment amended for allowing five, instead or 4 per cent, interest; and for want of amicable demand, the appellee paying costs i'n both courts, after the appearance of the defendant.</p>

This suit”commenced by attachment, The defendant, West, is sued on his promissory note, and property attached in the hands of garnishees. A curator adhoc was appointed to represent the absent defendant who pleaded a general denial.

This is an hypothecary action of six promissory notes executed by H. Lockett, payable to the order of F. Frey & Co., amounting to $3900 with interest, given as the price of certain city lots, with mortgage in favor of the plaintiff, the original vendor, and assumed by the defendants as the vendees of Lockett. Judgment is prayed against them with mortgage and privilege on the lots of ground.

This is an action based on a letter of credit. The plaintiff alleges that on the 4th April, 1839, B. A. Gamble acting in the name and by the authority, of the defendants, addressed a letter of credit by which they engaged to accept such drafts as Samuel Armistead might draw on their house between the first of December, 1839, and first of Fe-. bruary, 1840, to the extent of $2000.

<p>APPEAL EHOM THE COMMERCIAL COURT OP NEW ORLEANS.</p> <p>The plaintiffs had judgment on attachment, against the defendant for the sum of $2126 96, with interest, &c., and appealed. N The statement of fácits show that they claim $2814, with interest; and allow a credit of $440, leaving a balance of $2374, without interest. It ” is admitted the latter sum is correct, and that the judgment should have been so rendered.</p>

ATPEAIi EEOJt THE COHMEKCIAX. COURT 01 HEW ORLEANS. This is an action by the holder against the acceptor of a hill of exchange drawn and made payable at Portland in the state' of Maine.- There were various circumstances set out in the defence to show that the acceptor had received no consideration for the draft; that it was drawn and accepted under certain conditions known to the present holder, which were never fulfilled or complied with.

Charles Tiernan, the liquidating partner of the defendants’ firm pleaded a general denial and averred that the partnership was not in any way liable for the note in suit, because it was not given for the benefit of the concern, hut was an individual transaction for the private benefit'of 'one of the partners who then conducted the business of the firm.

APÍEAL PROM THE COMMERCIAL COURT OP NEW ORLEANS. This is an action against the drawee and acceptor of a hill of exchange, in which 69 bales of cotton are attached. The defendant bonded the property. M. Flourney intervened and claimed the cotton attached. The court refused,to hear evidence on or entertain the intervention,- because the defendant had bonded the cotton. There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and dismissing the petition of intervention.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COMMERCIAL COUHT OF NEW ORLEANS,</p> <p>This is an action against the defendant as one of several makers of a promissory note executed in the State of Mississippi, payable to the order of and endorsed by John McClellan. The defendant pleaded the general issue: and that the note sued on was given for the price of a tract of land, to which McClellan, the vendor, was ’ unable and failed to make any title. That if the plaintiff is the true owner of the pote (which is denied,) he took it after it was due, knowing the equities existing between the original parties. He prays that the plaintiff’s demand be rejected ; and that he he required to answer interrogatories touching the ownership and consideration of the note.</p> <p>The interrogatories were, ordered to be answered. The party interrogated resided in Mississippi.</p> <p>It appears the plaintiff went before one E. P. Stratton and answered the interrogatories on oath. The answers, with Stratton’s certificate that he received them as a justice of the peace, &c., apd administered the necessary oath were transmitted by the plaintiff to his counsel here, who offered them in evidence on the trial. They were .accompanied by Strat-ton’s commission from the governor of Mississippi, that he was a justice of the peace in 1838, at the date of the commission. The answers were sworn to before him however in 1840. Their introduction as evidence was objected to, by the defendant’s counsel but admitted by the Judge. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.</p> <p>1. The court properly admitted in evidence the answers of the plaintiff to the defendant’s interrogatories. These answers might-be sworn to before any person authorized to administer an oath, That the officer in this case was a Justice of the Peace, is proved by his original commission, filed with the plaintiff’s answers. If the Justice’s signature had been forged how could the plaintiff have obtained possession of the original commission 1 Besides, the moment it is proved he was a Justice of the Peace he becomes an officer, of the court for the purpose of receiving the plaintiff’s affid.avit, and the court will recognize his signature as such.</p> <p>2. The defendant having set up a special defence has thereby waived his plea of the general denial.</p>

This is an action against the makers and endorsers of a pro- • . missory .note. The defendants set np a special defence whichAs set out in the opinion of the court, and need not he recapitulated. The note was negotiable in its form, signed by J. Whitehead, President, payable “ to the order of Messrs.

This is an action by Robert Heath, who alleges that he carries on mercantile business under the firm of S. Heath & Co., and that the defendants are indebted to him in the sum of $2560 49, with costs of protest and interest; being for the amount of their promissory note, executed by Samuel Locke & Co., payable to the order of S. Heath & Co., sixty days after the 4th April, 1840.

This is an action against Pierre Laurans as owner, and Stansbury & Tensfield a firm doing business, -and lessees of Laurans’s house on the corner of Magazine and Gravier street, to render the former liable with the latter for their debt due by note to certain builders, which was transferred to the plaintiff. He alleges that Laurans leased his house to the other defendants, who employed Messrs. Slack & Smallidge, builders to make repairs and alterations on the leased premises.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST DISTRICT.</p> <p>This is an action to recover seven slaves which the plaintiff, Sarah Turner, alleges she is the owner', who were taken from' the State of Georgia where she always resided, brought to-this State without her knowledge or consent, and in fraud of her rights; and are now in the possession' of the defendants who refuse to deliver them up although amicably requested to-do so. She prays that said slaves be restored to her and that she have j udgment for them or their value' and for the value of their servcies.</p> <p>The defendants demanded that the- plaintiff exhibit her titles to said slaves, to which she replied that she resided in Georgia where she owned said slaves, where title to them can be shown by parol, and that she be allowed to" prove title by parol evidence.</p> <p>The defendants set up title by notarial act. Commissions issued to the State of Georgia to take the testimony of witnesses. On the trial certain depositions were objected to and rejected by the court. The bills of exception are stated in the opinion of this court.</p> <p>One of the jurymen in the course of the trial discovered that the slaves in contest, or some of them were liable in the hands of one of his debtors for his debt, issued execution against them before the verdict was given. There was a.verdict and judgment for the defendants and the plaintiffs appealed.</p>

This is an action orr policies of insurance, on the brig Mary Ann and cargo, on which the plaintiff claims $1399 88, for the amount of repairs done on said vessel, and for loss on her cargo occasioned by the perils'of the sea insured against. A detailed account accompanied the petition, setting out the items of expense and loss for which judgment is claimed.

This is an action for work done and services rendered; mo-n'ey lent and advanced, to and for account of the defendant during part of the year 1837 and the year 1838 ; amounting to $1157 25, for which the plaintiff claims judgment.

AMEAL UOM THE COMMERCIAL COUItT OF TOW ORLEANS. This is an action- on a policy of insurance in which the plaintiffs claim $859 67, for damage done to 14 hogsheads of zinc on their passage from New York to New Orleans. The zinc was much corroded and rusted on its arrival, evidently occasioned by salt water on the voyage. The defendants insisted they were not liable and set up several matters in defence which are fully noticed in the opinion of this court.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE PARISH COURT FOR THE PARISH AND CITY OP NEW ORLEANS.</p> <p>This is an action by Madame Adele Baird, wife of C. Bier-nacki, on a promissory note signed by Madame Charlotte Mexia, widow of the late General Mexia, and payable to the order of the plaintiff the 34th October, 1840, for $300.</p> <p>The defendant admitted her signature, hut pleaded an account for goods sold and delivered to the plaintiff amounting to $500, in compensation and reconvention.</p> <p>The cause came on for trial the 18th January, 1841, when the defendant’s counsel moved for a continuance on the ground that he had on the 13th applied for a commission to take the testimony of a witness in Mexico, &c.: various circumstances are slated in the counsel’s affidavit and grounds for the continuance, why this testimony was not had or applied for sooner. The application was overruled and the party ruled to trial. He excepted to the decision of the court.</p> <p>There was judgment for the plaintiff and rejecting the re-conventional demand. The defendant appealed.</p>

The plaintiff alleges that he leased of the defendant the large Hotel in Pensacola, by public act before H. B. Cenas, for two years, commencing the first of May 1837. That the defendant was bound to have said Hotel fitted up and put in complete order for his reception on the day of the commencement of the lease; having also acknowledged the receipt of one month’s rent in advance.

, This is an action by the holder against the payee and endorser of a promissory note, subscribed by one B. F. Chapman, and paraphed ne varietur, with a mortgage on a slave named Easter, to secure payment; who was sequestered in this suit. The defendant admitted his endorsement, but denied his liability to the plaintiff. He specially denied that the plaintiff was the bona jide holder of the note.

APÍEA1 EHOTO THE COURT OB THE BIRST JUDICIAI DISTRICT. This is a petitory action by the heirs of André Bernard to’ recover from the defendant a lot of ground in Chartres street, New Orleans. The plaintiffs claim as heirs of their ancestor, who1, they allege, died in possession and as owner of this property, in 1790.

<p>An agent who speculates on the purchase made for his principal, by management to get thearticle cheap and charges the market price, is not acting in good faith.</p> <p>The practice of agents chargiug their principals more than they pay for an article purchased by them, is illegal and should be discountenanced.</p> <p>An agent ivho purchas? made for his principal by management t0 get the article cheap and charges the not1 acting06in S00lifaltl1-</p> <p>The practice of agents charging their principals more than they pay for the articles purchased by them is illegal and should be discountenanced.</p>

ADl'EAt, FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This is an action of jactitation or slander of title, instituted by L. Millaudon, John Slidell, J. Kohn in his own right and as syndic of the creditors of H. G. Schmidt, and F. Frey, against John M‘Donough.

This is an action against the defendant, as payee, and on his promise to endorse a promissory note for $1429, signed by John Hoey, given as alleged for work and mechanical labor done and materials furnished, at the plaintiff’s Iron Foundry. The note is not endorsed by the payee, who, it is alleged, refused to endorse it as he promised to do. Judgment is demanded against him for the amount of the note. The defendant pleaded a general denial.

This is an action by the holder of a promissory note signed by Wm. Stackhouse & Co. payable to the order of Greenbury Dorsey, six months after the 20th December, 1838, for $5163, Dorsey, the payee and endorser is also a member of the firm of Wm.

This is an action in which the second Municipality claims title to and the possession of a parcel of ground lying in its front, within the limits of Faubourgs Delord and Saulet, hounded in front on Front street, on the upper line by Roffinac street by property or lots separating it from Benjamin street; an¿ rear |jy New Levee street, formed by alluvion from ^ Mississippi ® froPt °f said Faubourgs, and now in the possession and claimed by the Orleans Cotton Press Company.

The plaintiffs allege they axe the owners and have been in the undisturbed possession of six lots, composing a square or islet of ground in the Faubourg Delord, fronting on the river Mississippi and on New Levee, Benjamin and Suzette streets.

This is an action by the City Council of Lafayette, to compel J. H. Holland, G. Depassau, and J. Gleize, to relinquish all claim, to a strip of ground in front of their lots in the city of Lafayette, lying between Levee street, on which their lots front, and the levee. The City Council claims the administration of this space as a public place, for the use of the public, and require that it be kept open and used as such.

This suit commejiced by injunction. The plaintiffs allege they axe owners and possessors of houses and lots in the city of Lafayette; having been put in possession by a sworn surveyor, and their lines and boundaries pointed out to them by him, which possession they have held for upwards of fifteen years; and that they have built their houses and made improvements on their lots and within their boundaries respectively, but that the President and Board of Council for said city…

ON AN APPLICATION POR A RE-HEAUINGr. solicited a re-hearing- in this case. They insisted on it because the court had decided the whole case, when it was only tried in part in the court below; and the question decided by that court could alone be appealed from. The question of damages was by consent of parties reserved until the right of the defendants to make the levee should be first decided.

This is a suit td recover from the Third Municipality the amount of an account ($498) for putting up small planks at the corner of each street in said municipality, with the name of the street thereon in large letters, at the rate of one dollar for each plank. The' Municipality refused to pay the account, although its officer certified that the work had been done.

Tips is an action by Ann M. Morehouse, wife of J.M. Patton; of Lucre.tia C. Morehouse, wife of Joseph Pilcher, of Nashville, Tennessee; and of R. H. Sterling, of Mississippi, in .behalf of his minor children, in right of their deceased mother, Eliza Cornelia Morehouse, who claim to be the only legitimate heirs of Col. Abraham Morehouse, deceased, who died in the Parish of Ouachita, in the year 1813.

This suit commenced by the attachment of a quantity of cotton, or its proceeds, and of a slave, in the hands of Lam-beth and Thompson, which is alleged to be the property of the' defendants, Aiken and Gw'inn.

<p>After the dissolution of a partnership, neither of the partners epn bind the other or the firm, without special authority, derived from a new contract between them. Such a contract is essentially that of mandate.</p> <p>So where a partner drew a bill of exchange in the name of a firm which had been dissolved, on one of the partners and waived acceptance and presentation to the drawee: Held, that the latter is not bound, or ip any way liable for the payment of said draft.</p> <p>After the dissolution of a partnership neither of the partners can bind the other, or the firm, without special authority, derived from a new contract between them. Such a contract is essentially that of mandate.</p> <p>So where a partner drew a bill of exchange in the name of a firm which had been dissolved, on one of the partners and waived acceptance and presentation to the drawee: Held, that the latter is not bound, or in any way liable for the payment of said draft.</p>

This is an action on a quantum meruit, in which the plaintiff claims the sum of three thousand dollars for a year’s salary as President of the Orleans Cotton Press Company, before any fixed salary was allowed or established by the board. The evidence showed that the immediate successor of the plaintiff was allowed two thousand dollars per annum as his salary by a vote of the hoard.

APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Tbis is an action to reader the defendants liabje fen the value of a slave killed while lying asleep .qn their roqd, by the engine running oyer him. The testimony, in substance, showed that the negro had either become intoxicated or was by fatigue induced to lie down on the road and go to sleep. Qn the other hqnd, the engineer was unable or neglected to take up the engine in time to prevent running over him.

This is an action by a partner against his co-partner for the dissolution of a particular partnership, entered into • for the purpose of carrying on the manufacture of biscuit, crackers, &c., on a new plan according to a patent machine, which they hired from one John Bruce, a brother of the plaintiff, who intervened in this suit. The partnership was entered into on the 17th January, 1838, and this suit commenced in May following.

<p>Parol evidence is admissible to prove usury. This plea would seldom be avails able if required to be proved by a counter letter or other written evidence.</p> <p>Where a note does not bear interest on its face, but the act of mortgage taken to secure its payment, stipulates for ten per cent, interest from maturity, the excess charged from its date will be deducted.</p> <p>Parol evidence is admissible to prove usury.— This plea would seldom be available if required to be proved by a counter letter or other written evidence.</p> <p>Where a note doesnotbear interest on its face, but the act of mortgage taken to secure its payment* stipulates for ten per cent. interest from maturity, the excess w¡]í°b^ deducted.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROK THE COURT OF PROBATES FOR THE PARISH ANB CITX OF NF/V ORLEANS.</p> <p>The plaintiff alleges the succession of Manuel Borges is indebted to him in the sum of $63,634, for this, that in 1820 be left with said Borges nine slaves, with the understanding that he was to hire out said slaves and remit to him the proceeds at Rio Janeiro, in Brazil; but that he had never received any thing from him. He further alleges that said Borges several times admitted the slaves were left with him to hire out for his (petitioner’s) benefit, and that he had totally failed to account for either the slaves or their hire; that their value and that of their services or hire are well worth the sum he claims, and for which he prays judgment. .</p> <p>The executors and heirs excepted, and denied the plaintiff’s right to maintain his action, and that his Opposition should be dismissed.</p> <p>On the trial the plaintiff in opposition offered a witness to prove that Borges in his life time had acknowledged that he held these slaves as the plaintiff’s agent. This evidence was opposed on the ground that parol proof could not be received to show title to slaves, under the allegations in. the opposition, which objection was sustained by the court, and a bill of exceptions taken.</p> <p>The plaintiff offered the record of a proceeding against him in the United States -District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on account of these same slaves.</p> <p>This evidence showed that a Portuguese vessel with slaves (including the 9 now claimed,) had been (captured at sea by Pirates, and recaptured by an American vessel and brought into Charleston, where the vessel and cargo with the slaves were libelled. The slaves were claimed by the vice. Consul of Portugal and given up as belonging to Portuguese subjects, and the plaintiff appointed agent of the Portuguese claimants to convey them thither. They were put in the schooner North Star and brought to New Orleans, in order to procure a vessel to take them to Portugal. The vessel was seized, and the plaintiff arrested for violating the slave trade laws. He was however released, and in the meantime put the slaves into the possession of Manuel Borges, as he alleges to be hired out. He shortly after left this country for Brazil. Borges never accounted, and lately died. The slaves or their value, hire, &c. are now claimed by Penalta, the Portugese agent who had them in possession and placed them with Borges.</p> <p>The Judge of Probates says in his judgment,-the slaves “did not belong to Penalta, but were the property of certain Portuguese 'subjects, and that the opponent (Penalta,) only aiCted in relation to said slaves as agent of the Portuguese Consulate. He therefore can maintain no action in his individual capacity.”</p> <p>0pp0nent appealed from this judgment.</p>

This is an action in the nature of jactitation or slander of title. The plaintiff, originally Mademoiselle Camile Prieur, now widow Porter, residing at Toulouse in France, and relic of the late Benjamin P. Porter of New Orleans, alleges that being the lawful owner of two lots of ground in New Orleans, formerly held and owned jointly by her late husband with William A. Depeyster, she has sold said lots, but the defendant, Wm.

This is an action by the holder against one of the makers and endorser of a promissory note signed by Murray & Cas-sidy, payable to the order of and endorsed by Eusebe Belot. Belot admitted his endorsement, but denied his liability, or that the plaintiff was the bona fide holder of said note. He averred it was given to him in payment and secured by mortgage on a slave ; and that James Cassidy is the true holder and owner thereof.

<p>The legitimate daughter will Inherit the property of her deceased mother to the exclusion of an illegitimate son, not born in wedlock.</p> <p>Property purchased under the husband’s own judgment becomes a part of the community; although it may entitle him to the price which he paid for it, as a charge in the settlement of the community.</p> <p>The legitímate daughter will inherit thepro-ceEedf mother ^an^iiieglth Fate ,son> “F hora in wed-look,</p> <p>Property purchased under the husband’s own judgment becomes a part of the community; altho’ it may entitle him to th& price which he paid for it, as a charge in the settlement of the community.</p>

This suit commenced by attachment. The plaintiffs allege they are residents of the State of Kentucky, and hold a note on the defendant, who resides in Mississippi, for $6420, executed and signed at Vicksburg, by the defend ant and others, payable at the Merchants’ Bank in New Orleans, on the 1st March, 1841; which note they further allege, is secured by mortgage executed by said Wilson on the steam-boat Rodolph, the 20th March, 1840, They pray that the boat be attached, &c.…

In this case the curator having filed his tableau of distribittion, which was homologated, and in which it appeared the defendant was a purchasing creditor of property of the estate to the amount of $3250, retaining the purchase money. His share of the law charges on the final administration of the estate, which proved insolvent, was $443 25. The curator took a rule on him to pay over this sum, which was made absolute, and he appealed.

This case grows out of a seizure of a lot of furniture. The plaintiff having obtained a judgment for $742 against the defendant, Mrs. Maria C. Page, caused execution to issue the 20th November, 1840, which was levied on a lot of furniture, that had been previously attached and sequestered at the suit of Brower & Co., and was in the sheriff’s store-house.

<p>APPEAL EKOM THE COUItT OP THE PIBST JUDICIAL DISTH1CT. •</p> <p>This is an action on a freight or commission account according to an agreement, and an account for $889 annexed.</p> <p>The defendant admits he entered into an agreement with the plaintiff by which the latter was to furnish a cargo of cotton for the ship Normandie, from Vicksburg to Liverpool at 15-16ths of a penny per pound freight, and 5 per cent, primage. The cotton was to be pressed; but when he arrived at Vicksburg, no pressed cotton was to be had, and he took unpressed cotton at a penny and one eighth per pound. He avers he has paid the plaintiff the greater part of his account and tenders him the balance, as he has heretofore done, of $107 10, and prays to be dismissed with his costs.</p> <p>There was judgment however, for the whole amount claim' ed, and the defendant appealed.</p>

This is an action to recover $529 42, the amount of an account or balance due from the defendant to the plaintiff, as captain of the ship Montpelier, for freight collected on account of said ship. The defendant claimed an item of $234 90, for his commission on the outward freight for Liverpool; being on the freight of 967 bales of cotton. It appears the captain procured the freight through other persons than the defendant, and without any objection being made.

APPEAL PltOH THE COURT OP THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Tbis case comes up on an opposition to the bilan and petition of the plaintiff, making a voluntary surrender of his property to his creditors, arid praying for the benefit of the insolvent laws.

This is am application for a mandamus to compel the Judge of Probates of New Orleans, to allow an appeal from an order of his court, appointing dative testamentary executors of the last will and testament of N. Girod, deceased. When the olographic will of the late N. Girod was found and discovered to be without any executor, application was made to the Judge of Probates by two of the legatees to be appointed dative testamentary executors.

<p>It is within the province of this court to inquire into the manner in which the Judge a quo exercises the legal discretion committed- to him, whenever the party appears thereby, to suffer an irreparable injury.</p> <p>The Judge of Probates has the faculty and power given him to appoint dative testamentary executors, but it is a faculty he is to exercise according to law, and not in accordance with his will and pleasure 5 appointing whom he pleases.</p> <p>The beneficiary heirs are. first entitled to be appointed dative testamentary executors, where the testator has failed to name any in the will; and the legal heirs being entitled to the benefit of inventory, the estate must be administered under such benefit, and according to the rules provided for the administration of such successions.</p> <p>Where beneficiary heirs are appointed dative testamentary executors to a succession administered with the benefit of inventory, they are required to give security in the same manner as curators of vacant estates.</p> <p>Where strangers are appointed dative testamentary executors, by the Judge, disregarding the applications of heirs and legatees, the appointment will be annulled.</p> <p>The Mayor of a city, receiving a legacy as trustee, is not entitled to preference for the appointment of dative testamentary executor, as a legatee or créditor, of the estate. Persons who receive a' legacy in trust for others, have no more right of preference than the agent of a creditor or stranger.</p> <p>Notice of an application for the appointment of dative executor must be given in all cases, in the-same manner as for curators or administrators of estates.</p> <p>It is within thfs eourMo in-j^nerlnt0 which the Judge aquo exercises the legal discre-to him, when-appears^hereby t0 suffer an irreparable myu-ry.</p> <p>The Judge of Probates has the faculty and power given him to appoint dative testamentary executors; but it is a faculty he is to exercise according to law, and not in accordance with his will and pleasure, ap p oi nti ng whom he pleases.</p> <p>ciar^heh-^arer jjgSt ^p^nted datlve testamentary exeeu-* tors, -where the ed to name any the*legal\eirs-¡-«mg entitled to the benefit of m-ventory, the administered nefitT and'1 ao-£uies'%rovided ?or ^ a<jmin-istration of such successions.</p> <p>Where beneficiary heirs are appJinteTdattve testamentary executors to a succession adminis-benefit of inven-^quirecTto give seourlty ln same manner as curators of vacant estates</p> <p>where stran gers are appointed dative testamentary execu-dpa-egar-^tiLf'ofTeirs and legatees, the Cviiibeannulled.</p> <p>The Mayor °fng alega^y01®» CntiüedfoprefoC vence ^for^ the dative testamen-^legatee or cre-of-persons ^gaeyre|jlv^KS£ for otheis, have more right of ^Crédito™* or stranger.</p> <p>application0 for ^daS-e'eMMiC tor must be given in all cases, in the same manner as for curators or ministrators ox estates.</p>

ATTEAD TROM THE COURT OT THE TIRST JUD1CIAD DISTRICT. The plaintiff having filed his hilan and petition, praying for the benefit of the insolvent laws, W. J. Moffatt was appointed a provisional syndic. At the meeting of creditors, P. Riviere was chosen syndic, who took a rule on the provisional syndic to hand over the property, effects, &c. of the estate of the insolvent.

This is an attachment suit instituted the 25th of February, 1840, against the defendant, John E. Palmer, in which the plaintiffs claim a judgment on his note for $6833 43, with 8 per cent, per annum interest thereon, payable the 25th of March, 1839, at the branch of the Union Bank of Mississippi, at Lexington. They pray for attachments against property in the hands of Ward, Moffitt & Co., in New Orleans, and S. S. Cobb & Co., who are also cited as garnishees.

<p>AFFEAL FROM TIIE COMMERCIAL COURT OF NEW ORLEANS.</p> <p>' This is an. action on a promissory note of the defendant for the balance due after allowing a credit.</p> <p>The defendant averred that after maturity of said note he ha'd placed several promissory notes in plaintiffs’ hands out of which to make the money, and in consequence thereof they agreed not to bring suit. He then propounded a string of interrogatories touching this matter, which plaintiffs promptly answered, showing that the notes deposited so far as collected had been credited, and that the balance the defendant promised to pay repeatedly but had failed.</p> <p>There was judgment for the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed.</p>

This is a suit to procure the erasure of a mortgage which resulted from a building contract of $7000, entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant, Twogood. The plaintiff shows that by the terms of the contract, the building was to have been finished and delivered the 1st of April, 1838, but was not finished according to contract. He further shows that by payments and deductions he had reduced the principal sum to $1778. This was admitted.

This is an action against Gloyd & M'Donnell as the drawers of a bill of exchange in New York on J. & W. Gallaher, of New Orleans, for $3969, which was duly accepted, payable nine months after date, and protested for non-payment. The defendants admit the drawing of the bill but rely on a . want of due notice of protest. They plead a general denial.

This is an action on a promissory note, executed jointly and severally by Mrs. A. M. Glasscock and John Hootsell, at Natchez, on the 27th of March, 1838, payable eight months after date, to the order of Samuel Cotton, for $1944 89, The suit was commenced by attaching property of Hootsell in the hands of Franklin & Henderson in New Orleans.

<p>The testimony of two witnesses to the declarations of the deceased father that he owed his daughter (the plaintiff) $500, was received as evidence of the existing debt, although there was an attempt to discredit the testimony.</p>

<p>APTEAIi THOM TIIE COURT OT THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.</p> <p>This is a suit against Huie & Hale as endorsers of anote.</p> <p>Judgment by default having been rendered against Huie on failing to answer, the next day his counsel filed dilatory exceptions and had the judgment by default set aside. Three days afterwards, the plaintiff on proving his demand had final judgment against Huie without deciding on the exceptions; the court disregarding them and treating the order setting aside the judgment by default, as a nullity. From this judgment, Huie-appealed, who is alone before the court.</p>

ArPEAL PROM THE COURT. OP THE PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This is an action to recover from the defendant the sum of $68,637, which the plaintiffs allege he failed to pay over to them, out of a larger amount which had been deposited in the U. S. District Court, of which he was clerk.

APPEAR EROS! THE COMMERCIAX COURT OE SOT ORLEANS. This is an action on a policy of insurance. The plaintiff and wife allege that insurance was effected on a large quantity of furniture, in a house in the city of Lafayette, built, the lower story of brick and the second of wood; said furniture belonging to them, amounting to $1000.

<p>Where the testimony is insufficient to show clearly that the note, endorsed by defendant, was altered after its execution, by adding* the words ee payable at the Union Bank,55 he cannot exonerate himself from his endorsement.</p> <p>Where the testimony is insufficient to show clearly that the note, endorsed by defendant,was altered after its execution, by adding the words “payable at the Union Bank,” he cannot exonerate himself from his endorsement.</p>

This is a suit against the maker of three promissory notes amounting to $500, protested for non-payment. There was judgment by default made final. The defendant came forward and averred he had made a cession of his property and was not liable to be sued; and prayed an appeal. The, record comes up without any evidence except the notes and protests. The other testimony was not taken down.

The plaintiffs allege the defendant, Nolte, is indebted to them in a large sum, and has property or effects in the hands of Kirkman, Abernethy & Hanna, and that his residence is out of the State and unknown to them. They pray for an attachment and citation of the garnishees. The latter admitted a balance in their hands due to Nolte of $3883, attached by Lam-beth & Thompson.

<p>The defendants, sued as endorsers, failed in proving their defence, and judgment against them was affirmed.</p>

<p>Where a partner accepts a draft in the name of the firm, but which is for his individual benefit, on payment, the other partner may be subrogated to the creditor’s rights and recover the amount from his co-partner.</p> <p>Where a partner accepts draft in the name 0f the firm, but indlriduaíbené-^"her^partner may be sub-creditor’s rights am0untfrom his C°-Paltnel'</p>

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the judge of .the Third Judicial District holding court in the Parish of East Feliciana, to grant a suspensive appeal, without giving security except for costs, from a judgment dissolving an injunction, which one William Dunn had obtained against an order of seizure sued out by Robert Dyer on an act of sale and mortgage of a plantation and 21 slaves, sold by him to the former.

This suit commenced by attachment. The plaintiff residing in Tennessee, filed his affidavit the 11th April, 1840, and on the 13th his petition, alleging the defendant residing in Arkansas, was indebted to him in the sum of $3,500, which he had to pay as endorser, the 13th April, 1837. He prayed judgment for this sum and for an attachment against the property of said defendant in the hands of Lee & Co., whom he cited as garnishees, and propounded interrogatories.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding of quo warranto, instituted by Ft Jordy to oust P. A. Plebrard as a director in the Louisiana State Bank. At the election of twelve directors by the stockholders of this institution held the 23d of February, 1841, the defendant, He-brard, was returned duly elected, being the lowest on the list voted for and returned : and having one vote' more than the plaintiff, who was left out.

<p>A continuance will not be allowed, because a public officer is called as a witness with his records, at the moment of trial, and shows his records are locked up and his clerk has the key, and is absent at the time.</p> <p>Where a judgment states the “court being satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim is correct,” it is a sufficient constitutional reason to support the validity of the judgment.</p> <p>anee will not bé caúsela’ public ofllcei'1S «ailed with his records at the moment of trial, records°WS are [°cke<i, U,P ®n<1 his clerk has the key and is absent at the time.</p> <p>Where a {heS«c^rtstibe! j,nS satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim is cor-rec{; ^ sufficient con-son^o^upport the judgment °f</p>

This is an action by the holder or endorsee of a promissory note against the endorser, for the balance due thereon. The ’defendant denied being indebted as charged; and averred that he had made a voluntary surrender of his property to his creditors, and by'a supplemental petition placed the plaintiff on his schedule, all of which proceedings he pleads in bar to this suit.

This is an action on a promissory note signed by B, Beauregard and endorsed “ Thefesfe Palmer,, per pro. A. W. L. Palmer.” The defendants severed in their answers.

This is an action to recover the amount of a plasterer’s wages. The facts of the case are sufficiently explained in the opinion of the court.

<p>Great forbearance on the part of a creditor and holder towards the maker of a note, but who never appears to have given time so as to preclude himself from suing, and suspending his remedy to the prejudice of the endorser, the latter cannot complain or he exonerated.'</p> <p>Since the adoption of the act of 1823, excluding the testimony of the maker of a note, in a suit by the holder against the endorser, the maker cannot be admitted as a witness on any grounds; even if he be entirely disinterested.</p> <p>Great forbearance on the part of a creditor and holder, towards the maker of a note, but who never appears to have given time so as to preclude himself from suing, and suspending his remedy to the prejudice of the endorser, the latter cannot complain or be exonerated.</p> <p>since the act'of1 mtif ex- ^ maker of a note, in a suit by the holder against the maker"can-V^vitness'on any grounds; even if he be entirely disinte-restecl'</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE PARISH COURT FOR THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.</p> <p>This is an action to recover an old slave, horse and dray, valued in the inventory at $331, and damages for the tortious taking and illegal detention of the same. The plaintiff alleges the defendant took said property and detains it without any reason or title whatever, which belongs to the estate he ad* ministers. He prays judgment, restoring the possession of the property, and 500 dollars in damages; and that in the mean time the slave, horse and dray be sequestered.</p> <p>There was a judgment by default, made final, restoring the possession, and allowing $25 per month for the time of the slave from the 6th May, 1839, until delivery. Judgment signed^Júne 8th, 1839. The defendant appealed.</p> <p>urged the affirmance of the judgment with costs and damages.</p> <p>assigned as error that damages were asshésed mthofit the intervention of a jury, and for this reason alone judgment must be reversed; Code of Pr. art. 313.</p> <p>2. Damages could only be given from the date of citation on the 8th May, and ceased to run from the time of rendering judgment. — 2 La. Rep. 404; 1 Martin, N. S. 574; 1 Gallison 315;</p> <p>3. A judgment cannot be rendered for any matter posterior to its rendition ; 5 La. Rep. 225.,</p> <p>4- The judgment is unconstitutional for not assigning reasons, and referring to the law.</p>

APPEAL PROS! THE COURT OX' THE I'IRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, The plaintiff being in custody under two executions, made application for the insolvent law of 1808, for the benefit of debtors in actual custody. He filed his petition and schedule, an(j praye¿ to t,e released from custody.

Appeal Erom the court op the first judicial district. This appeal comes up from a judgment obtained by the plaintiffs against the garnishee in this case. ,The plaintiffs had recovered a judgment for $728 against Antonio Paie, one of the defendants, as' the . value of certain flour they had sold to him and Smith, for cash, hut which had. not been paid, and which was sequestered, and bonded by the defendant, Paie, with Bartlette, the garnishee, as surety.— This judgment was…

<p>Where an amended petition was filed with a new affidavit and bond, correcting the name of the defendant, but no new order of attachment was granted; Held, that the attachment issuing thereon is a nullity.</p> <p>Where an tion^was ^ed davit anTbond" 00<,recti“g ‘he name of the debut no new order of attachment was fhat'The attaoh-^ci'eon is anal-^fr-</p>

ArriiAB froji the parish court for the parish and city of NEW ORLEANS. This is an action for the balance of account due by the defendant, who resides in Havana. Jean Ignacio Laborde was cited as garnishee and required to answer interrogatories. These he answered as set forth in the opinion of this court. There was judgment against the defendant for #3,105. A rule was then taken on this garnishee to show cause why he should not be condemned to pay the amount of the judgment.

It appears a slave hired by the defendant, in his employment driving- a dray, and being in-a full trot, ran against the plaintiff’s gig and broke it; doing also serious injury to the servant .driving it. The evidence was clear that the damage was occasioned by the neglect and unskilful driving of the drayman, and that he was hired and put in this employment by the defendant. It further appeared that the servant driving the plaintiff’s gig did not belong to him.

The appellant, Hoffman, applied for the curatorship of the vacant estate of Jacob Schert, deceased, alleging he was a friend of the deceased. Jacob Kaiser made opposition, averring he was a friend and also a creditor of said decedent. There was a hill of exceptions taken to the answers of Kaiser to interrogatories propounded to him in open court by Hoffman, touching the rent due him.

<p>Ünder the act of 1808, although the insolvent failed to deposit Ins books in the ° 1 clerk’s office at the time of his application, yet he may be permitted to do so as soon thereafter as they were called for $ even after opposition filed.</p> <p>Where the opponent alleges he believes the insolvent has omitted to put all Ins property in his schedule, it will not be considered a charge of fraud.</p> <p>"Where theloss of part of the insolvent’s books is shown by his affidavit, and an ex parte affidavit, hearsay, and other evidence received without objection, it will suffice,</p> <p>When there are no creditors in court, opposing the discharge of a debtor, under the act of 1808, there is no obstacle to his discharge.</p> <p>When the opposition does not contain an actual charge of fraud, a Jury need not be empannelled to try it.</p> <p>Under the act of1808jalthough the insolvent failed to deposit his hooks in the clerk’s office at the lime of his application* yet he may be permitted to do so as soon thereafter* as they were called for ; even after opposition filed.</p> <p>Where the op/¡e^e^es^he Jetted \o all his proxierty in his schedule, it will not he chai^of fmidt</p> <p>WI the l°ss °/ P,art of the insolvent’s hooks is shown and an ex-parhT sf^añÜí other ed without ob jeetton, it will</p> <p>aro^no creditors in oourt, opposing the discharge of a the act’ of 1808, obstacle *to his dls°harge.</p> <p>When the opposition does not contain an actual charge of fraud, a Jury need not to t™P(‘lnnelleil</p>

Af&ZÁt iMñ ftüt Ó'OURT OF T¿E FIRST JTJDSCIAI, DISTRICT. ífe h ari acition to recover the sum of $504, the value of 287 sacks of corn, which it is alleged the defendants caused to he provisionally seized under the landlords’ privilege for arrears of rent, amounting to $200, due them by their lessees, Mills The plaintiffs further allege that' they warned the defenda'ntó as soon as they had notice of the seizure, not to sell the corn as it waü fheisfe i offering at the same…

. . . . , This is the second time, which the present case has been before this court. See 13 La. Rep. 279. Claiborne and Mather were three-fourths owners of the steamboat Marmora, which was destroyed by fire, and J. Le-plicher the owner of the other fourth. The boat was insured for 140,000.

<p>An account for boarding and expenses of the last sickness, which depends on inspection and proof, the judgment of the court a qua, in which the witnesses appeared and testified, will have great weight.</p> <p>An account for boarding and expenses of the last sickness, which depends on inspection and proof, the judgment of the court a qua, in which the witnesses appeared and testified, will have great weight.</p>

<p>Where a creditor takes the goods of his supposed debtor in his absence, and sells them at a sacrifice, he is chargeable with them, at the price they were limited at by the consignor.</p> <p>Where a creditor takes the goods of his supposed debtor in his absence, and sells them at a sacrifice, he is chargeable with them, at the price they were limited at by the consignor.</p>

This is an action to enforce the performance, or recover damages for the non-performance of a contract made with the defendants for the importation and delivery of 50 miles of Rail Road Iron.

The defendant claimed title under the Marshal’s sale for taxes, purporting to he made under the act of 1828.

This is an action to recover the balance of a lumber account, amounting to $2874 43, according to a detailed statement annexed to the petition. The plaintiffs allege, they made three several consignments of planed lumber to defendants for sale, amounting to $6030, which was duly received and sold by the defendants ; that the latter sold on credit, and took notes, which was unauthorized.

<p>Where the drawers of a bill depend for its being honored, on the proceeds of a claim against the drawee, then in litigation, and take a receipt that it shall not be protested in case of dishonor, to save costs, they will not be considered as having funds in the hands of the drawee so as to entitle them to notice.</p> <p>Where the drawers of a bill depend for its being honored, on the proceeds of a claim against the drawee, then in litigation, and take a receipt that it shall not be protested in case of dishonor to save costs, they will not be considered as having funds in the hands of the drawee so as to entitle them to notice.</p>

This is a petitory action, in which the plaintiffs claim 12 lots of gi^pnd, comprized in a block or. part of a square, fronting on Circus street, and bounded by St. Paul and Hevia streets, which they allege their father, Thomas L. Harman, purchased in 1819 from Edward Livingston, and now in the possession ° and claimed by the defendants Owen O’Moran, M. Ryan, T. Park, J. Field, and L. Janin.

APPEAL PROM THE COURT OE THE PIBST JUPlCiAE DISTRICT. This is an action for the settlement of a particular partnership, and the recovery of a balance of $454, which the plaintiff alleges is due to him on a final liquidation and close of their affairs, by the defendant. He filed an account showing this balance and which is annexed to the petition. The answer negatives all the allegations in the petition and pleads the want of amicable demand.

This is an action for assault and battery committed on both plaintiffs by the defendants Peter and Owen Daily, claiming #500 iii damages. The defendants pleaded a general denial; and aver, that if they used any violence it was done in a passion without knowing what they were doing. . The evidence fully proved the assault and beating of the plaintiffs without the least provocation. The jury assessed the damages at $500,- the full amount claimed.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE PÍRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.</p> <p>This is an action for the rescission of the sale of three squares of ground in Hurstville. The plaintiff alleges he was induced by the advertisement and plan of the town of Hurtsville to buy these squares, on which plan a rail-road figured,’ representing a rail-road running from the river Mississippi through Nashville street, to the Carrollton Rail Road, with an extensive car house in the middle. That in fact no such rail-road ever existed, hut was falsely and fraudulently represented to deceive purchasers. He therefore prays for an injunction to restrain and enjoin an order of seizure and 'sale which had issued against these squares orlots of ground and that the sale he rescinded.</p> <p>The defendant denied any fraud or concealment in the sale of the lots or squares in question, and -negatived the allegations in the petition.</p> <p>On the trial the plan and advertisement were produced in evidence. The plan on its face contradicted the allegations of the petition. Instead of a rail-road, the inscription on it was, “Nashville Rail-Road projected.”</p> <p>Upon the evidence adduced, which showed no deception or concealment in’ the sale of the lot's, there was judgment for the: defendant; and also dissolving the plaintiff’s injunction. He appealed.</p>

This is an action to recover the balance due on a paving contract between the plaintiff and defendants, F. Saulet, and Madame Foucher, and for extra work done in paving corners of defendants’ property, according to a detailed account annexed, and with the contract between them.

This is an application for a mandamus, to compel the District Judge to grant an injunction in a certain case, to stay an execution. Thomas Hughes, J. Bellow Jr., C. F. Hozey as Sheriff, recovered a judgment against the La. State, Marine and Fire Insurance Co., on a policy of insurance on the schooner Frederic Arnet.

This is an action on a physician’s account for services rendered in dressing the wounds and curing the defendant, who was severely hurt while on parade the 22d February 1839, by the accidental explosion of a cannon. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is indebted to him for his attendance as a physician and surgeon in the sum claimed, and for which he prays judgment.

The plaintiff alleges, he is the owner of a slave, who absconded, and that the defendant, who is master of the schooner Molaeska, while lying in port, employed his said slave as a cook on hoard for several days, without his (plaintiff’s) knowledge or consent, and to his damage, in the loss of time and diminished value of said slave, in the sum of $1000.

APPEAL FROIÍI THE COURT OF PROBATE* FOR THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. The plaintiff 'admitted he was indebted to the succession of the late Francisco Tacón, in the sum of $11,000, which he was ready and desirous of paying, hut he denied that the defendant was properly authorized to receive it and give him a valid acquittance therefor.

This is an action to recover the sum of $312, which the plaintiff alleges he advanced to the defendant’s wife on the pledge of her jewels. He expressly states that the defendant authorized his wife to make said pledge, and receive the money on it, and which enured to his benefit.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.</p> <p>This is an action against the drawer of a hill of Exchange, ..drawn at Warrenton, the 23d December, 1836, on Brander, McKenna & Wright, of New-Orleans, and by them accepted; payable to the order of George Henderson, 373 days after date. The bill was duly protested for non-payment at maturity; and on the 1st November, 1840, this suit was instituted against Wm. Henderson, the drawer, for the sum of $3600, with costs of protest and interest; for all of which the plaintiff prays judgment. -</p> <p>The defendant, without admitting any of the allegations in the petition, pleaded a declinatory exception, declining the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground, that his legal domicil' and principal establishment are, and for a long time have been in the Parish of Carroll; that he further excepts to the petition, in not setting out the plaintiff’s place of residence.</p> <p>Upon these pleadings and issues the case was tried.</p> <p>The opinion of the court contains a full and correct statement of the facts and evidence of the case.</p> <p>There was judgment overruling the exception, and for the plaintiff for the amount of his demand. The defendant appealed.</p> <p>insisted, the judgment was correct, and should be affirmed.</p> <p>contended that judgment should he reversed, and one of non-suit rendered.</p> <p>The defendant’s domicil and principal establishment are in the Parish of Carroll, and not in New Orleans. Civil Code, 42, and Tanner vs. King, 11 La. Rep. 178.</p> <p>Defendant must be cited at the place of his domicil; Code of Practice, 162; and even if he reside alternately in Carroll and New Orleans, he must be cited, where he appears to have his principal establishment. Ibid. 166.</p> <p>Defendant never declared his intention to change his domicil to New Orleans”, and has done no acts in that place, which clearly manifest an intention to make it the place of his domicil. Ibid. 168.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.</p> <p>This is an action on a promissory note for $1573 45, signed John Henderson & Co., dated at Warrenton, (Miss.) 30th March, 1839, payable the 1st of May following to the order of plaintiffs. They allege that the defendant, William Henderson, is a partner of said firm, and resides at present in New Orleans, and they pray judgment for the amount of said note, interest and costs of protest.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded his domicil and averred that his residence was in the parish of Carroll. The cause was tried on these pleadings and issues, and also on the evidence taken in the preceding case of Williams vs. Henderson.</p> <p>, There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.</p>

This is an action, against J. H. Kraft, to recover the sum of $21,371, which the plaintiffs allege is justly due them ; and that said Kraft resides permanently out of this state, hut has certain property, effects, rights and credits in the hands of James R. Sterrett, Esqr., which they pray may he attached, and that Sterrett he cited as garnishee to answer interrogatories.

This is an application for a mandamus, commanding the Judge of Probates for the city and parish of New Orleans, to admit and order the will of Charles M'Manus, deceased, opened and probated in the State of Kentucky, to be enregistered and made executory here, without appointing a dative testamentary executor and attorney for absent beirs. A rule was taken on the judge in this court to show cause why the mandamus should not issue as prayed for.

-This is an action on two billfe of exchange of the following tenor: «000. New Orleans, May 2d, 1839. “ Sixty days after sight of this first of Exchange, second unpaid, pay Benjamin 'Whitney, or order, $2000; value received, and charge the same to account of GILLINGHAM & GO.” To L. EL Gillingham, “May 15, 1839.

<p>Judgment affirmed with damages as a delay ease.</p>

<p>Judgment affirmed; on the abandonment of part of the defence and admissions of the defendant.</p>

<p>Judgment affirmed with maximum of damages, as a delay case.</p>

<p>Appeal dismissed for want of means to examine the case.</p> <p>This is a suit against the defendant as one of the makers of a note signed Hodge & Merrifield.</p> <p>There was an exception or plea of misnomer, that the defendant was sued as Andrew S. Merrifild when his name was Alden S. Merrifield. The plaintiff amended, made service of new citation and had judgment. The defendant appealed. ,</p> <p>It appears all the evidence was not taken down.</p>

This is an action on a merchants’ account for $876 10, against J. Morrison & Co. J. Morrison excepted; and averred he never carried on business under the firm as alleged in the petition. He admits he was cited, hut is doing business in his own name and cannot answer the plaintiff’s petition. Time was given to answer in. On the merits he pleads the want of amicable demand, and that he did not owe all the account. There was judgment against him and he appealed.

AITEAL FROM: the COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This is a petitory action. The plaintiff alleges he is the owner of a female slave named Lydia, worth $800, and which he shows to he in possession of the defendant, who refuses to deliver her up. He prays judgment for said slave and her hire at $150 per annum. The defendant, widow Favier, pleaded the general issue and set up several other matters in defence.

APPEAR I-ROM THE PARISH COURT IOR THE PARISH AMD CITY 01 NE'W-ORI.EAIrS. This is a petitory action. The plaintiffs who are the children and heirs of the late Madame Guerin, formerly Marguerite Chauvin Delery, now deceased, sue to recover a female slave named Celestine and her daughter Fanny, which they allege they inherited from their deceased mother and which are in the possession and claimed by the defendant Bagneries.

This is a redhibitory action to rescind the sale of a negro woman and her two small children on the ground of redhibitory defects and diseases in the woman, and to recover back the price paid.