No. 1688.-Margaret D. Chambers v. John B. Haynes and Wife.
No. 2507.-Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughterhouse
Company v. Steamboat B. L. Hodge and Owners.
No. 2509.--Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughterhouse
Company v. Benevolent Butchers' Association.
No. 2506.-The Live Stock Dealers' and Butchers' Association v. The Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company et al.
No. 2505.-Butchers' Benevolent Association v. The Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company
No. 2504.-Imbou, Aycock & Co. v. The Crescent City Live Stock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company.
No. 2902.-State, ex rel. B. L. Mann, v. The Judge of the Sixth Judicial District.
No. 2481.-State, ex rel. Belden, v. G. M. Wickliffe.
No. 1974.-Allen Hill v. A. A. Levy.
No. 3038.-J. F. Seguin v. Harvey Guild.
No. 3014.-State, ex rel. Reesha, v. Clerk Sixth District Court.
No. 2982.-State, ex rel. Train, v. Clerk Sixth District Court.
No. 3015.-State, ex rel. Denman, v. Clerk of Sixth District Court.
No. 2977.-State, ex rel. N. O. M. and B. Company, v. Clerk of Sixth
District Court.
No. 1898.-Montgomery Brother & Co. v. Edward
No. 2796.-William L. L. Mann v. B. L. Mann.
No. 2077.-Mrs. John Strathie v. P. J. Traquair.
No. 2152.-Gallagher v. Haywood & Haskins.
No. 1419.-Cass & Dowling v. V. Sulakoski.
No. 158.-State v. Edward Pierson.
No. 154.-State v. John Harris.
No. 103.-William M. Sale v. J. A. Mays, Tax Collector.
No. 153.-State v. John Sweetzer and J. A. Carter.
No. 78.-D. R. Carroll & Co. v. Chamberlin & Hardy.
No. 157.-State v. Willis Green.
No. 156.-State v. Dick Johnson.
No. 159.-State v. Isaac Johnson.
No. 168.-State v. William R. Prather.
No. 108.-H. Block & Co. v. Varner & Bridger.
1. A non-resident may appeal from a judgment rendered against him
on attachment any time within two years from the date thereof.
Schmidt & Ziegler v. First National Bank of Selma, 314.
2. In an action upon a joint obligation, all the parties thereto must
be made parties to the suit. C. C. 2080, 2081, 2082.
Hyde v. Marcy, 383.
3. Where, therefore, a suit was brought in New Orleans, upon a joint
promissory note, made there, and one of the defendants in such
suit, an absentee, who had neither a residence nor property in
Louisiana, was cited through a curator ad hoc. Held That he
was a necessary party; that the only course left was to appoint for
him a curator ad hoc, and that he subjected himself to this eventu-
ality by signing the agreement in suit. 5 An. 674.
Ib.
4. Whether or not such a judgment, as against the absentee, can
have any extra territorial effect, it is not, in Louisiana, a nullity.
1. A commission merchant who purchased a mortgage note for one of
his customers, for which he charged the amount in his account
current, can not afterwards, and after the maturity of the note,
transfer it and convey title to a third party. A third party getting
possession of the note under such circumstances, can only hold it
subject to whatever equities might be urged against the original.
Gribble v. Haynes, 141.
2. Where the wife separated in property from her husband, has
instructed her factor to purchase a mortgage note having a
superior rank to her claim, on the property of her husband, which
note the factor transfers to a third party after maturity, she may
intervene in the suit to enforce payment, and be declared the true
and legal owner thereof.
1. No action lies to recover rent for the lease of a house to be used
as a brothel.
Kathman v. Walters, 54.
2. In an action to recover the value of a lot of cotton from the
defendants, who, it is alleged, had it on storage, failed to deliver
when demanded, the evidence showed that the claimants were not,
and never had been, the owners thereof. Held-That not being
owners they could not recover the value on account of non-
delivery. That to enable them to recover under this allegation,
they must establish title to the cotton by evidence. Litigants
must be held to the issues presented by their pleadings.
Levi v. Silverstein, 363.
3. The character of the action is determined by the prayer of the
petition, and if suit is brought for damages, or the value of the
property, with interest, in solido, alleged to have been received by
the defendants, the action is prescribed by one year.
Bender v. Looney, 488.
4. The action accorded to a surety to have a personal recourse against
his principal for whom he has paid, is only prescribed by ten years.
Cleveland v. Comstock, 597.
5. A ruling of the court, refusing an intervention, if correct at the
time it is made, does not afterwards become incorrect by the party
changing his character from that of an individual to that of a
representative. Nor can a party, by way of intervention, compel
other parties to litigate for his benefit or gratification.
ADMIRALTY.
1. The State courts are without jurisdiction to enforce a privilege
given by law on vessels for the recovery of damages for a mari-
time tort. In such cases an admiralty lien is created which can
only be enforced in the courts of the United States. 4 Wallace,
424, 561.
Youny v. Ship Princess Royal, 388.
2. A claim for damages ex delicto can not be enforced by attachment.
12 An. 110.
Ib.
3. In an action for damages against a vessel for a collision, no judg-
ment can be rendered against her if the evidence shows that she
was not in fault, and that she was, at the time of the collision,
under the control of a tugboat.
Ib.
4. A contract for materials furnished and repairs done to a steamboat
or other vessel in the home port is not a maritime contract, there-
fore the admiralty courts of the United States, have not exclusive
jurisdiction to enforce a lien arising from such a contract.
Southern Dry Dock Company v. Gibson, 623.
5. By the home port of a vessel is meant the port or place of her per-
manent registry and enrollment, and the place where every act of
sale or mortgage must be recorded to give it effect against third
persons.
Ib.
6. The States are competent to create such liens as their Legislatures
may deem just and expedient in favor of furnishers of supplies
and materials used in the construction and repairing of vessels,
and to enact reasonable rules and regulations prescribing the
mode of their enforcement, provided they do not amount to a regu-
lation of commerce between the States.
7. Where suit is brought in a State court to enforce a lien on a vessel,
which lien is given by statute, and the owners of the vessel except
to the jurisdiction on the ground that the lien is an admiralty one,
which the State court is without jurisdiction to enforce, the State
court will, in case of doubt, maintain its jurisdiction.
ADMINISTRATORS.
SEE EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
1. The principal is not bound by the receipt of his agent, when it is
shown that the agent has been deceived by false representations of
the debtor. In such a case the principal may recover from the
debtor the balance due, after deducting the amount paid to the
agent in full settlement of the demand.
Bayly and Houston, Curator, v. R. H. and G. M. Bayly, 17.
2. A party acting as agent or employe for a number of heirs in the
prosecution of a land claim, under an agreement and contract, may
withhold the payment of so much of the proceeds of the sale of the
land, which he has received for them, as will be necessary to cover
possible liabilities on account of suits brought by settlers for im-
provements made on the land, unless the heirs give satisfactory
security against loss, resulting from such suits.
Heirs of Bastable v. Succession of Denegre, 124.
3. Loyal Case and the heirs of Bastable made a contract whereby
Case was to prosecute their claims to the lands in the Bringier
grant, in the parish of Concordia, Louisiana, and defray all
expenses incident thereto, for one-half of the land recovered. After
judgment was obtained in favor of the heirs, Case sold and assigned
his contract to James D. Denegre. Held, by the court, that under
this contract neither Case, nor his assignee, was responsible for
the taxes on the land prior to the recovery of possession by the
heirs, nor for claims for improvements made on the lands. That
these claims constituted an incumbrance on the land itself, and
was not included among the expenses which Case bound himself
to defray in establishing their rights to and recovering possession
of the lands claimed.
Ib.
4. An agent or mandatary receiving notes for the sale of property
belonging to his principal, becomes personally responsible if he
fails to use due diligence in enforcing their collection.
5. A contract between a planter and a factor or commission merchant,
whereby the latter binds himself to furnish the necessary supplies
for the working of the plantation, not to exceed a specified amount,
and to receive and sell the products of the place for the benefit of
the planter, is a contract of agency on the part of the merchant,
which terminates at the death of the agent. By the death of the
AGENT AND AGENCY-Continued.
agent, in such a case, the planter is absolved from all obligations
to continue the contract, and the heirs of the agent are not bound
on the contract. Such an agreement is personal, and not herit-
able.
Shiff v. Succession of Lesseps, 185.
6. Where the agent of a planter has died, and the surviving wife forms
a commercial partnership, with third parties, who assume the con-
tract of agency which was terminated by the death of the agent, it
was held by the court that the rights of the heirs to the estate of
their deceased father became fixed at his death, and that the sur-
viving wife, in her capacity of tutrix, could not bind their estate
for liabilities of the new firm growing out of the contract of agency
which terminated at the death of their father.
Ib.
7. Where the evidence shows that the owner of a promissory note
placed it in the hands of commercial agents for the purposes of
negotiation, and the agents afterwards bring suit as owners, the
maker of the note can plead all the equities in the suit that may
exist against the original holder and owner, although it may be
shown that the note came into their possession, as agents, before
naturity.
Sinnot & Adams v. Schlater, 201.
8. An agent can not relieve himself from responsibility for moneys
which he has collected for his principal by showing that he has
invested them in the purchase of cotton for his own account, with
the sanction of his principal. He must show, in addition, that he
has turned over the cotton to the principal, or that the principal
has authorized him to retain it.
Moncheux v. Mistrot, 421.
9. A payment made on a promissory note by an agent, without
authority from the debtor, will not interrupt prescription.
Smith v. Coon, 445.
10. A renunciation or waiver of prescription by the administrator, after
prescription has accrued, is null, as against the estate. 21 An.
373. Therefore, if the administrator had made a payment on the
note, as agent, without authority, before prescription accrued, he
had no authority to ratify the act, as administrator, after the note
was prescribed.
lb.
11. An agent can not be made liable for a note placed in his hands for
collection, if it be shown on trial that the original consideration
thereof was the price of a slave.
Little v. Johnson, 474.
12. Agents acting under a quasi contract are not liable for interest and
expenses incurred on the property in their hands, nor are they
liable in solido.
Bender v. Looney, 488.
13. An agent is not accountable to his principal, nor to the legal rep-
resentatives of the principal, for rents which he collected during
the war in Confederate notes, with the knowledge and approval
of the principal.
Turner v. Beall, 490.
|