Book III. tit. 5, arts. 36, 41, 42. Husband and wife.
art. 53, § 3.
rie, 181.
arts. 88, 97.
Guérin v. Rivarde, 457.
Waggaman v. Zacha-
Succession of Durnford, 488.
tit. 10, art. 32. Interest. lb.
19, art. 17, § 3. Husband and wife., Waggaman v. Zacharie, 181.
art. 60. Mortgage. Macarty v. Landreaux, 130.
tit. 20, art. 59. Prescription. Guérin v. Rivarde, 457.
10. Contracts, by what law governed. United States v. Bank of United
States, 262.
435. Corporations. Wardens of Church of St. Louis v. Blanc, 51.
446. Banks of navigable streams. Dennistoun v. Walton, 211.
457. Fruits of immovables under seizure. Commissioners of Bank of Or-
leans v. Hodge, 450.
1168, 1169, 1172. Successions. Succession of Hart, 121.
Succession of Durnford, 488.
State v. Judge of Probates of West Baton Rouge, 193.
Contracts. Moreau v. Chauvin, 157.
1905, 1906, 1907, 1920.
1924, 1925. Contracts.
Union Bank v. Thompson, 227.
Wardens of Church of St. Louis v. Blanc, 51.
2160. Imputation of Payment. Martinstein v. Creditors, 6.
Ib. Sewell v. Hennen, 216.
2255, 2256. Evidence. Macarty v. Canal and Banking Company, 102.
2294, 2295. Offences and Quasi-offences. Browne v. Pontchartrain Railroad
Company, 45. Wardens of Church of St. Louis v. Blane, 51.
2337, 2342, 2343, 2355. Husband and wife. Guérin v. Rivarde, 457.
2377. Husband and wife. Waggaman v. Zacharie, 181.
2402, 2410, 2411. Husband and wife. Guérin v. Rivarde, 457.
2412. Husband and wife. Waggaman v. Zacharie, 181.
2415. Sale. Macarty v. Canal and Banking Company, 102.
2421.
Guérin v. Rivarde, 457.
2497, 2498. Sale. Lemos v. Daubert—Rehearing, 225.
2512. Sale. Rist v. Hagan, 106.
Macarty v. Canal and Banking Company, 102.
Commissioners of Bank of Orleans v. Hodge, 450.
2652. Letting and Hiring. Dennistoun v. Walton, 211.
2663, 2664. Letting and Hiring. Shall v. Banks, 168.
2787, 2788. Private offices. Ex parte Powell, 95.
2961, 2964, 2966, 2969. Mandate. Miller v. Canal and Banking Com-
3150. Privilege. United States v. Bank of United States, 262.
3280. Mortgage. Waggaman v. Zacharie, 181.
3335, 3336, 3357. Mortgage. Macarty v. Landreaux, 130.
3424. Prescription. Montgomery v. Levistones, 145.
3490. Guérin v. Rivarde, 457.
13. Contracts, by what law governed. United States v. Bank of United
States, 262.
92. Competency of judge. Quimper v. Bierra, 204.
122, 123. Actions against successions. Succession of Durnford, 488.
131, 132. Contempts of Court. State v. Soulé, 500.
140. Production of books and papers in possession of adversary. Martin-
207. Days on which civil process cannot be served. Irish v. Wright, 428.
240, 242, 243. Attachment. Ib.
259. Attachment. Enders v. Steamer Henry Clay, 30.
279, 280. Sequestration. Fink v. Martin, 256.
367 to 373. Demands in compensation. De Lizardi v. Hardaway, 22.
379. Demands in warranty. Howrin v. Clark, 27.
Succession of Durnford, 488.
395, 396. Opposition of Third Persons. Brown v. Cougot, 14.
463. Setting cause for trial. Hazard v. Boykin-Rehearing, 254.
473. Production of books and papers in possession of adversary. Martenstein
533, 535. Judgment. Hazard v. Boykin-Rehearing, 254.
566. Appeal. City of Lafayette v. Parish Judge of Jefferson, 5.
586.
Second Municipality v. Martin, 148.
654, 655, 667. Sale under fi. fa. Lamorandier v. Meyer, 152.
684. Sale under fi. fa. Fink v. Martin, 256.
689, 690. Sale under fi. fa. Commissioners of Bank of Orleans v. Hodge,
707. Sale under fi. fa. La Gourgue v. Summers, 175.
Leverich v. Prieur, 97. La Gourgue v. Summers,
710, 715. Sale under fi. fa. La Gourgue v. Summers, 175.
722. Sale under fi. fa. Commissioners of Bank of Orleans v. Hodge, 450.
839. Mandamus. City of Lafayette v. Parish Judge of Jefferson, 5.
912. Applications for rehearing before Supreme Court.
State v. Soulé, 500.
989. Interest on claims against successions. Succession of Durnford, 488.
1. Where the curator of a succession claims in his account rendered to the
Probate Court, an amount as damages for an eviction from land sold to him
by the deceased, the allowance of which is opposed by the heirs, the fact of
the right to damages being unliquidated, will be no obstacle to their being
claimed and allowed in compensation of any amount due by the curator to
the succession. It is not necessary that the damages should have been pre-
viously liquidated in an action by the curator against the heirs.
Succession of Durnford, 488.
2. Pleading in compensation should be favored, as it tends to prevent the un-
necessary multiplication of suits. Ib.
3. Appellant, while acting as curator of a vacant succession, was evicted from
land purchased by him from the deceased, and in his account he credited him-
self with the amount claimed as damages for the eviction. On an opposition
by the heirs, on the ground of prescription: Held, that until they appeared
and claimed the succession the curator was its legal representative, and
could not enforce a demand, in his own favor, against it; and that to the
extent of the funds in his hands, his claim was compensated, and might be.
opposed to the claims of the heirs by way of exception, even if incapable of
being enforced in a direct action. Ib.
Personal property has no locality, and the law of the owner's domicil will, in
all cases, determine the validity of its transfer or alienation, unless there be
some positive or customary law of the country in which it is situated to the
contrary. United States v. Bank of United States, 262.
1. In framing the State Constitution of 1812, it was deemed unnecessary to
insert any restriction upon the power of the legislature on the subject of re-
ligious sentiments or worship, as it had already been settled, by solemn
compact between the original states and the people of the territory, unalter-
able but by common consent, under the act of congress of 2d March, 1805,
and in conformity with the ordinance of that body of 13th July, 1787, that
religious freedom, in its broadest sense, should form the basis of all laws,
constitutions and governments which forever after might be formed within
said territory. Wardens of Church of St. Louis v. Blanc, 51.
2. A very strong case must be made out, to induce the court to declare a law
of a neighboring State unconstitutional, especially when it appears that the
purpose of the law was in a great measure remedial.
Hyde v. Planters Bank, 416.
3. The court will not, in any case of serious doubt as to the constitutionality
of a law, pronounce it void. lb.
4. A court may propound interrogatories to an attorney against whom an at-
tachment has been issued for a contempt, for the purpose of ascertaining
whether he was the author of the petition containing the contemptuous lan-
guage for which the attachment was issued, and his intention and motive in
writing it; and the court may require an answer to them. Nor is this right
a violation of the provision of the 18th sect. of the 6th article of the consti-
tution, which declares, that "in criminal prosecutions no one shall be com-
pelled to give evidence against himself." State v. Soulé, 500.
17, 26, 54, 61, 84.
1. Where the evidence of a contempt of court is before the court, and the of-
fence palpable, a rule to show cause why an attachment should not be
issued, is unnecessary. In such a case an attachment may be issued in the
first instance. The practice of taking a rule, arose out of a distinction be-
tween direct and consequential contempts, and was resorted to, where it
became necessary to procure evidence not before the court.
State v. Soulé, 500.
2. A court may propound interrogatories to an attorney against whom an at-
tachment has been issued for a contempt, for the purpose of ascertaining
whether he was the author of the petition containing the contemptuous lan-
guage for which the attachment was issued, and his intention and motive in
writing it; and the court may require an answer to them. Nor is this right
a violation of the provision of the 18th sect. of the 6th article of the constitu-
tion, which declares, that "in criminal prosecutions no one shall be compel-
led to give evidence against himself." Ib.
3. Contemptuous language contained in a petition, prepared by an attorney,
for a rehearing of a cause pending before the Supreme Court, though filed
with the clerk without a formal motion in court, will subject the offender to
punishment for a contempt. Stat. 27 March, 1823, § 3. Such a petition
must necessarily pass under the notice of the court, while in session; and,
being required by art. 912 of the Code of Practice to be presented when
the court is in session, in the absence of proof to the contrary it will be
presumed that it was filed according to law. Ib.
I. Parties to, and Consent necessary to Form,
II. Execution and Proof.
III. Object and Consideration.
IV. Interpretation.
V. Joint, and In Solido.
VI. Putting in Default.
VII. Extinction.
I. Parties to, and Consent necessary to Form.
1. By the laws of Pennsylvania, a corporation is as competent as a natural
person to make an assignment for the benefit of creditors, and to give a pre-
ference to one or more creditors, even after insolvency.
United States v. Bank of United States, 262.
2. It is no objection to the validity of an assignment for the benefit of credi-
tors, under the laws of Pennsylvania, that it has not been expressly accepted
by them. Acceptance will be presumed where it is shown that the assign-
ment was for their benefit, and there is no stipulation for a release of the
debts, nor any thing calculated to delay the creditors unreasonably. Ib.
3. The seventh section of the statute of the State of Mississippi, of the 21st
February, 1840, which declares that, “it shall not be lawful for any bank in
that State to transfer by endorsement, or otherwise, any notes, bills receiv-
able, or other evidence of debt" did not impair any obligation contained in
the charter of the Planters Bank of Mississippi, and is not a violation of any
prohibition in the constitution of the United States. Per Curiam: The
statute does not impair the obligation of any contract existing between the
bank and its debtors. It modifies the capacity of the bank to cede to ano-
ther the right to enforce such contracts. Nor can the bank be said to have
any vested right to make such a transfer, resulting from any contract with
the State. The capacity of contracting is generally within the power of the
Legislature, in reference to future contracts; and remedies may be modified
at its will. Hyde v. Planters Bank, 416.
4. No one can be said to have any vested right in any existing legal capacity
in reference to any future contract, or advantage to result from that capaci-
ty. The capacity or incapacity of particular classes of persons to contract,
or to inherit, depends upon the legislative will. lb.
5. After a wife has obtained a separation of property, or a separation from
bed and board carrying with it a separation of property, she may alienate
any property formerly dotal, and, consequently may ratify any alienation
made before the separation. Code of 1808, book 3, tit. 5, arts. 36, 41, 42,
97; tit. 20, art. 59. C. C. 2337, 2342, 2343, 2355, 2410, 2411, 2421,
3490. Guérin v. Rivarde, 457.
6. Where in an action against a bank for the amount of notes alleged to have
been destroyed by a fire which consumed the residence of plaintiff, the evi-
dence leaves no doubt of the destruction of the notes, plaintiff will be enti-
tled to a judgment for their amount on the condition of executing a bond,
|