





TABLE OF CASES. 
“4 
¥ 
tt ° 
WESTERN DISTRICT, AUGUST TERM, 1826. 
. Bayon vs. Tow'es, - = 
7 4 March vs. Church of St. Martin, 
% Reeis vs. Knight, » ° 
: Fawie vs fenn«ssey - ~ 
Perry vs. ierbeau an! wife, « 
Coai:n vs. Dumart :it & al. 
Ozann» vs. Delisle, - . 
Gons -ulin’s heirs vs, Brashears, 
Dumartrait vs. Deblane and wife, 
Garland vs Lockeit, - 
= Debaillon vs Ponsony ° 
Stille vs. Brownson, ° é 
Day and wiie vs Thibodeaux, 
Skillman and wile vs. Lacy, 
Sprigg vs. Bossier and wife, 
Hodge vs. Eastin, - “ 
Chretien vs. her husband, - 





Saunders vs Harding’s heirs, 


Daralde’s heirs vs. Guidrey, - 


Castille ve. Dumartrait, - 

Fusilier vs Hennen, = = . 

Abat vs. Sigura, - . 
e Rees vs. Dejean, ‘a 

Perry ve. Felievre, * . 

Foster ve. Murphy, 





OHRONOLOCGICAL 


SSeRper 





PaGE 
1 


§ 
9 
il 


42 
47 
48 
50 
54 
57 


62 
65 
69 
71 
78 
76 
78 




























CHRONOLOGICAL 





































PAGE 
Broussard ve. his creditors,  - - ° 82 
Irwin vs. Robb, - . ee ss 84 , 
Gradnigo vs. Rogers & al. - ° 85 4 
Prevost and wife vs. Greig & al. - 87 y 
OCTOBER, 
Postlewa‘te ve. Hunt & al, - ° 89 
Prudhomme vs. Murphy, - - - 90 
Pavie vs. Norbert, - - - - 92 
Fredeau vs. Grillet, - - - - 95 
He-‘ser vs. Black & al. - - - 96 
Rouquier’s heirs vs. his executors, ~ - 98 
Watson & al. vs. Clark, > é ; 100 
Catholic Church vs. Miller, ° - - 101 
Sprigg vs. Wells, - - . - 104 
Downs vs. Kemper, - - . - 106 
Martin vs. Martin, - - - ° 107 
Hooter’s heirs vs. Tippet, ° - = 109 
Douglas €& al. vs. Curtis, - - ° 112 
Watts vs. Hunter, - - - - 119 
Clarke vs. Wright, - - - 123 
Havard vs. Stone, ~ * - - 126 
Pleasants & al. vs. Potts & al. - - 127 
Criswell & al. vs. Gaster & al. - ° 129 
Buard’s curator vs. his heirs, . - 132 ; 
Stafford vs. Stafford, “ . . 136 
3 Clay vs. Oakley, . « « = 137 
4 Cox vs. Williams, * - ~ ° 1389 
Strong vs, Morgan, - - ° 143 
Stafford ws. Stafford, - ° ° 145 
Wells’ heirs vs. Baldwin - . * 146 
Perkins & al vs. Campbell & al. - 149 
Southward €& a). vs Bowie, ~ - 151 
Reynolds vs. Thomas, - ~ » 152 
Benson ve. Shipp, - - = - 154 " 
M‘Crumen vs, M‘Cramen & al. 














Bynum ve. Armstrong, - 
Stafford ve. Stafford, a 
Hunter ve. Smith, - * 
Martin ve. Martin’s heirs € al. 
Norwood vs. Green & al. - 
Hunter vs. Smith, - - 
Thomas vs. Callihan’s heirs, 

Johnson vs. Kirkland, ° 


Bakewell, vs. Cole & al. . 
Boatner vs. Henderson & al, 
Rost vs. St. Francis’ church, 
King & al]. vs. Howard, ” 
Bullard vs. Wilson, - 
White ve. Cumming, - 


Byrd vs. Bowie, - - 
Sterling & wife vs. Drew & al. 


Overton vs. Archinard, oo 
Cowen vs. Havard, - 
Baillio & al. ve. Wilson & al. 


Baillio vs. Baillio, ~ 


Bayoujon‘s heirs vs. Criswell, 
Wright vs. Harman & al. 


Glase vs. Russel, 3 - 
Cuny vs. Archinard, - 
Gardere & A‘, vs. Murray - 
Woods vs, Kimble, - 
Adams vs. Gaynard, - 
Bray vs. Cummin €& al. a 
Tanner ve. Robert, - 


TABLE OF CASES. 


PAGE. 


159 
16% 
164 
165 
174 
177 
180 
182 
185 
186 
192 
193 
196 
199 


201 
203 


207 
212 
214 
228 
232 
235 
237 
238 
248 
246 
248 
252 
255 


EASTERN DISTRICT—-NOVEMBER TERM. 


Thompson vs. Linton & al. 

Wakeman vs. Marquand & al. 
_ Philpot vs. Patterson, - 
Martial vs. Cottrel, - 
Griffon vs, Mayor & al. . 


261 
265 
273 
274 
279 


gue oa 





































CHRONOLOGICAL 



































Castlemar vs. Stone, © Ps e 5 oR 


Elfiott vs. Cox, - - -' « 285 5 
DECEMBER. a . 
Nelson vs. Louis. State Ins. Co, - > 289 , 


JANUARY, 1827, 
Taylor vs. Hol'ander, - . . 295 
Richsrds vs. his creditors, - . « - 298 
Mathurin vs. Livaudais, - ek _ 803 
O'Brien vs Louis. State Bank, - - 305 
Caldwell vs. Tewnsend, - - me 307 
U.S. Bank vs. Jchnston, - - - 310 
Smith vs. Hanrathy, - . - 319 
Poignant vs Livermore, - - - 324 
The State vs. The bank of Loursiana, ” $27 
Laporte vs. Landry, . - = 359 
Barbarin vs. Saucier, - - a 361 
Sterling vs. Juhnson, - - a 362 
FEBRUARY. 
Bigelow vs. Pigneguy, - . = 367 
Melion vs, Bucks & al. - ° . 371 
Robins vs. Weeks, ° ° - 879 
Osacar vs., Lous. State Ins. co. ~ + 5E6 
Police jury vs. Hempton - ‘ye - 389 
Dorsey vs. his-creditors - - = $99 
Bowman vs. Fiower, - . - 407 
Milne vs. Davidson, - " = 409 
MARCH, 
Dafan vs. Degruys,' ae - ” 416 
Roberts vs. Kinchen & al. . . e 417 
Deflcch er’s Syndics ve. Degruys a. > 423 
M‘Micken vs. Smith & al. * - . 4127 
Jewet vs. Davis & al. - “. - 432 
Lobre vs. Pointz, ~ & - - 444 
Bedford & al. vs. Jacobs, « - ° 448 
M'Clintock & al. vs. Cairnes & al. = . 452 




































TABLE OP 


re) PAGE 
Commandeur vs..Russel. - - a | 
Shimmin ws. Jones, ee i 
Cucullu ve. Lous. Ins. Co. 0! tle er ‘ 
Duncan vs. Poydres’ ex’rs. . ee «1 
Thatcher vs. Walden, * * ms AQS 
Caraby & a'. vs. Morgan, 2 ishwor! .ce 499 
Akin & al. vs. Bedford & al. . : 502 
Elkins vs. Canfield, - - erat. ws 160s 
APRIL. 
Breaux vs. Greaud, - - - ‘oF (509 
Allain vs.-Whitaker & al. “ - ate 2086 . 
Byrd ve. M‘Micken, ‘= - ° 515 
Balfour vs. Chew, - - - - 517 
Lacroix vs. Coquet, - « «- 527 
Flower & al vs. Swift, - - - 529 
Brooke & al. vs. Lous. Ins. Co. - - 530 
Dicks & al. vs. O'Conner, - - - 547 - 
Millaudon vs Percy & al. - - - 551 $ 
Fox vse. Adams, - - - . 558 
Flood vs. Thomas, - - - . 559 
Mellon vs. Lou's. State Ins. Co. * - 563 , 
Jewei vs. Andrews, . « ~ 566 
U. S. vs. aulos’® ex’rs. - - - 567 
Sau! ve, his cre:‘itors, ° - “ 569 
Butier vs. his creditors, - . - 64 3 
Purdy & Al. ve Hood& al. - ~~ - - 696 4 
Heniy vs. Hyde & al. - - . 633 4 
Johns.n vs. Field, - - ° : 635 
Zecharie vs Orleans Insurance Company, > 637 
Patin vs. P.ydras’ Ex’rs. - - » 659 
Applegate vs. Morgan & al. ~ - ° 642 
Saunders vs: Ingiam, ° é a 648 
Lonis vs Decoux, ° 2 = 649 
Babecek vs. Penniman, . ° . 651 
Donaldson & al. vs. Dorsey’s syndics, 






















TABLE OF CASES. 


; PAGE 
Dicks & al. ve Benton, ° . e 657 
Gilman vs. Horseley, - - - 661 
Miller vs. Reynolds & al. = - - €65 
Owens vs. Mitchel, - - - 667 g 
Patterson -vs. Lafarge, ° - - 669 
Murdock ve. Browder, ~ 3 é 677 
Overton vs. Gervais, “= - 2 682 
Priou vs. Adams, ° ° ; e 691 

MAY. 

Perry vs. Williams, ° . a : 694 
Abat & al. vs. Nolte’s syndies, ‘ 4 697 
Beon vs. Morgan, » ie ° ° 701 
Turnbull vs. Freret, : . . F 703 


Fluker vs. Turner, 











ALPHABETICAL 


TABLE OF CASES. 


Abat ve. Nolte’s syndies. Sale, 
Sigura. Practice. 
Adams ads. Fox. Contract. 
vs.Gaynard. Jury. 
vs, Priou. Act. 
Akin % al. vs. Bedford & al. Avent. 
Allain vs. Whitaker & al. Protest, 
Andrews ads. Jewell. Account, | 
, Applegate vs. Morgan & al. WVonsuit. 
Arehinard ads. Overton. Interest. 
Cuny. Sale. 


Armstrong ads. Bynum. Agreement, 


Babcoek vs. Pennyman. Minor. 
Baillio vs. Baillio. Executor. 


Probates, 
Bakewell vs. Cole & al. Supreme court, 
Baldwin ads. Well’s heirs, Purchase. 
Balfour vs. Chew. Evidence. 
Bank of Louisiana ads. the State. State bonds. 


Vox. V. N.S. R 








Baillio & al. ve. Wilson and wife. Court of 





PAGE 
697 


73 


248 
692 
502 
Sit 
566 
642 
207 
238 


159 


651 
228 


214 
185 
146 
517 
528 








ALPHABETICAL 


Barbarin ve. Saucier. Conveyance, 
Barton ads. Dicks € al. Endorsee. 
Baulos ads. United States. Privilege. 
Bayon vs Towles. Sale of a slave. *” 
Bayonjon’s heirs vs. Criswell. Practice. 
Bedford & al. vs. Akin & al.’ Arent. 
. vs. Jacobs. Interesz. 
Believre ads. Perty, Practice, tri gorg 
Benson vs. Shipp. Novation. 
Beon vs. Morgan. = Co-heir, 
Bigelow vs. Pigneguy. Verdict. 
Black & al. ade, Hester... Fraud. 
Boatner vs. Henderson & al. Mortgage, 
Boissier and wife ads. Sprigg. wife, 
Bowie ads. Southward €& al, . Attachment, 
ads. Bird. Usury, 
‘Bowman vs. Flewer. Supreme court.. 
Bray ve. Cummins & al. Evidence, 
Brashears ads. Gonsoulin’s heirs. Grant, 
Preaux ve. Greaud. Citation, . 
Prooke & al. ve, Louis. Ins. Co. Insurance, 
Broussard ve. his creditors. Practice, 
Browder ads. Murdock, © amendment, 
Brownson ads. Stille. Sherif’’s sale, 
Baard’s curator ve. hisheirs, Witness, 
Backs &al. ads, Mellon. Abandonment, 
Ballard vs. Wilson. Promissory note, 
Butler vse. her creditors. T'utor, 
Bank ve. Williamson. Appeal, 
Bynum vs. Armstrong. Agreement, 
Byrd vs. M‘Micken. Practice, 
vs. Bowie. Usury, 


Cairnes & al. vs. M‘Clintoek %& al. Attachment, 
Caldwell vs. Thompson. Attachment, 














Eek ease: 


78 
154 
701 
367 


bd 


15 


Bt 


BeSe8SeR8 §8 

































TABLE OF. CASES. 


cdind PAGE 
Gallihan’s heirs ads. Thomas. Eweeution, 
Campbell & al. ve. Perkins & a]. + Zransfer, 
Ganfield ads. EMsins.-. Curator, - 
Caraby & al. vs. Morgan. Sheriff,- 
Carlin vs. Dumartrait. Transfer, . 
Castille vs. Amendment, 
Castleman ve. Stone. - Witness, 
Catholic chureh ve. Miller. Legacy, 
Gliew ade. Balfour. Evidences 
Chretien vs. her husband. Wife 
Church of St. Martins @de, Mare. witness, 
Clarke vs Watson’sheirs, appeal, 
: vs. Wright. Insolvent; 
Clay vs. Oakley. WVotice, 
Cohen vs. Havard. Wotice, 
Commandeur vs. Russel. Notice, depositions. 
Coquet ads, Lacroix. Surety, 
Cotterel vs. Martial, ae 
ox ads. Elliot. Execution, “ 
ve. Williams. witness, 
Creditors ade, Broussard. Practice, 
Butler. Tutor, 
Dorsey. Insolvent, 
Richards. Cession, 
Saul. wife, 
Criswell ads. Bayoujon‘s heirs. Practice, 
va. Gaster & al. Race, 
Cuculla vs. Louis. Ins. Co. Jneurance, 
Cummin vs. White. Damages, 
& al. vs. Bray. Evidence, oii 
Guny vs. Archinard. Sale, r 
Curtis ads. Douglas & al. Judgment, 112 7 





GESETERSLRE TARA ERSTE. SRERS CEES: 


Davidson vs. Milne. Contract, New-Orleans, 409 
Davis & al. ve. Jewett. - Gazette. 



























ALPHABETICAL 


Day & wife vs, Thibodeaax. will, 
Debaillon vs Pensony. Appeal, 
Deblanc and wife ads. Dumartrait. wife, 
Decoux ads, Lewis: Interrogatories, 
Deflechier syndics ads, Degruys, Private act, 
Degruys ads. Dufau, Land, 
vs, Defiechier’s syndies, Private act, 
Dejean ads, Reels, Interest, 
Delisle ads, Ozanne, Tutor, 
Dicks & al, vs,O-Connor, Transfer, 
Barton, Endorser, 
Donaldson & al. ve. Dorsey’s syndics. Minor, 
Dorsey’s syndics ads. Donaldsen. Minor, 
vs. his creditors, Insolvent, 
Douglas & al. vs. Curtis, Judgment, . 
Downs vs, Kemper. Appeal, 
Drew & al. ads. Sterling. Possession, 
Dufau vs. Degruys. Land A 
Dumartrait ads. Carlin. Transfer, 
vs. Deblanc & wife. wife, 
ads Castille. Amendment, 
Duncan’s vs. Poydras’sEx’rs- shippers 
Duralde’s heirs vs. Guidry. Protest, 


. Eastin ads. Hodge. Partner, 
Elliot vs. Cox. Execution, 
Elkins vs. Canfield. Curator, 


Fennessee ads. Rawle. Absent heirs; 

Field vs. Johnson. Practice, 

Flood vs. Thomes.  witriess, 

Flower & al. vs. Swift. Court of probates, - 
ads Bowman. Supreme court. 

Flucker vs. Turner.. Execution, 

Foster vs Murphy. Sale, 


Fox vs, Adams. Contract, 








geFSkeubteeecet 








112 


8 


eis 


38 
69 


65 


57 
286 
505 


11 
635 
559 
529 
7 
707 

79 























TABLE .OF CASES. 


end’ PAGE 
Fredeau v8. Grillet.. Verdict, YP 95 
Preret ads. Tornbull.. Executor, Oe 798 
Pusilier vs. Henpen.|Lessec, ft 
Gardere & al. ve. Murray. Practice, 244 

Girlond vs. Lreket. Attorney of absentheire, 40 
-Gaster & al. ads, Criswell. Race, * "499 
Gaynard ads. Adams. Jury, = ere 248 
Gerbeau and wife ads. Perry. Promissory note, walt 
Gervais ads. Overton, __ interest,~ 682 
‘Gilman ve. Horsely,.: Administrator, 661 
Glaze vs. Russel, appeal. 237 
.Gonsoulin’s heirs vs. Brashears. Grant, 38 
Gradnigo ve. Rogers & al. Appeal, ~° 86 


Greaux vs. Breaux. Ctfation, 509 


. Green & al. ads. Norwood... Evidence, 177 
Greig & al. ads. Prevost & wife. Appeal, 87 
Griffin vs, Mayor & al», Farmer, «.- 279 

_ Grillet ads. Fredeau. Verdict, 95 
Guidry ade: Duralde’s heit's. ~ Frotesi, . a 
Hampton ads. Police Jury. Levee, °5 qunsae 
Harding’s heirs ads, Saunders. Fatate, 62 
Harman & al. ads Wrighti Sheriff, Loe 85 
Harrathy ads. Smith. Practice, 319 
Havard ads Cohen. Notice, 212 

Stone. Injunction, 126 

King & al. Transfer, 193 
Henderson & al. ads. Boatrer. Mortgage, “186 
Hennen ads. Fusilier. Lessee, 71 
Henry ade.Hy’e & al. Fraud,* 633 
Hesser ve. Black &al. Fraud, 96 
Hodge ve. Fastin Partner, ” §7 

’ Hollander ads. Taylor Executor, ~ 995 
Hood & sl. ve. Purdy & al. © partnership, 626 


4 Hooter’s heirs ve. Tippet. possession, 


























Yh, 














? , PAGE 
Howard ads. King & al. sranefer, . ., 39 
Horsely ade.Gilmin: dministrator, "661 
Hunt & al. ade. Postlewaite. Appeal, _ 89 
Hunter ve. Smith: Discontinuance, oes (| 
—_ * Bvidence, 177 
v8. Wells: Res judicata, 119 
Hyde & al. ads: Henry: Fraud, 633 
Ingram ads, Saunders: Appeal, ine "ee 
Irvin vs. Robb: Appeal, eniex 34 
Jacobs ve. Bedford & at. Entercst,: a 
Jewel vs. Andrews: ' Recommendation, 566 
Jewel ve. Davis Seal. - Gazette, e roa ' 
Johnson vs. Field; | Practice, 635 
vs, Kirkland. Will,. 182 
and wife ads, Sterling: Reicase, 362 
ade: Us S.Bonk: -Wetnese, 310 
Jones ade. Shimmin, . Fraud, - abs 
Kemper ade, Downs: Appeal... ... . 106 
Kimble ads, Woods: Assumption, © 246 
Kineben & al: ads. Roberts: Curator, 416 
King. & al: ve. Howard: Transfer, 193 
Kirkland ads, Johnson: Will, 18% 
Knight ads: Reels: Partition, 9 
Lacroix ve: Coquet: Surety, $87 ©) 
Lacy ads: Skilman and wife: Court of probates, 50 
Lafarge vs. Patterson: Agent, 669 
Landry ade, Laporte: Promissory note, $59 
Linton €#/al: ads: Thompson: Jury, 261 
Livaudais ade. Mathurin: Fidei commiessum, 303 
Livermore ads, Voignant: Partnership, - $@t 
Lobre ads. Points: Recommendation, . Aad 
Locket ads Garland: Absent heirs, Re 
Louis ve. Decoux: Jnterrogateries, 























ive : , , PAGE 
ep » ; 4 »e 3 4 
Louis. Ins. Co. ade. Cueully: “Insurance, » voi 
Brovke & kal: cy AEM. 3% hi 
Lavis State Bank ade: O°Brian;, ‘witness, — 98 
Ins, Co: ade. Melton; Insurance, $68 
Nelson: Idem, ... «x 589 


Ossear; Idem. ., 9 sf 


Mare ve: Church of St. Martin: witness, neaght 
Martis) ve. Cotterel, ‘ . 275, 
Marquacd & al. ade: Wakeman: Verdict, 965 
Martin vs, Martin :,:- Curator,» »: 107 
“fF heirs & als Minor;'” > 368 ~ 
Mathurin vse, Livaudais:: Fidei commiseuni, * 908 
M‘Clintoek & al: vs: Cairnes € \al::' 450 
M‘Crummin vs, M‘Crummin: notice; “458 
MfMicken ads. Byrd: Practice, 514 
vs: Smith £¢ al: Appeal, ae 4g7 


Mellon ve: Bueks & al: Mbandonment,” © °° “S7P 
ve. Louis: S:ate Ine: Ca: Insurance, | ; 563 _. 
Millaudon vs, Perey @/'al: “Partition, 551 


Miller ads. Catholiechurch: Legacy, 101 — 
ve: Reynolds & al: Laws, 665 ; 
Milne ve: Davidson: Contract, ee 
Mitehel.vs, Owens: Collateral kindred, oo sie on 
Morgan ads: Strong: Contract, ~— 
Beon: Cohesr, , . aie 7, 4 
Carahy ¢ al: Sherif. pcaise i 
Applegate. Nonsuit, . _ , Shs 
Murdock ve, Browder, amendment, .. ., 67%. 
Murphy ade Foster. Sale, : 79 
Prudhomme: Certiorare, 90 5 
Murray ads. Gardere &al. practice, 244 
Nelson ve. Louis. State Ins. Co. Instance, 389 
Nolte’s syndics vs. Abat. Sale, " © C7 
Norwood ve. Green & al. ~ Evidiente, “1% 


' Noyrel ads. Pavie. Account, 






























sce Banna sh Ni a ise 


~ ALPHABETICAL 


Oakley ads. Clay. notice, 
O’Brien ve. Louis. State Bank. Witness, 
O’Covner ads. Dicks & al Transfer, 
Orleans Ins.Co.'ads Zcharie. Insurance, 
Osacar ve. Louie: Stute Ins. Co. Insurance, 
Overton vs. Gervais. Interest, 

vs. Archinard. Jnterest, 
Owens ve. Mitchell. Collateral kindred, 
Ozanne vs. Velisle. . Tutor, 


Parkins & al. ve. Campbell. Transfer, 
Patin vs, Poytras ex’rs Contenuance, 
Patterson vs Philpot. Partner, 
vs. Lafarge. Agent, 

Pavie vs. Noyrel. Account, 
Pennyman ads Babcock. Minor, 
Percy & al. ade. Millandon. arias 
Perry vs. Believre. practice, 

Williams. Damages, 

Gerbexu and wife. promissory note, 
Philpot vs. Patterson. partner, | 
Pigneguy ads Bigelow. Verdict, 
Pleasants € al. ade. Potts: Appeal, 
Poignant ve. Livermore. partnership, 
Pointz vs: Lobre: Recommendation, 
Police Jury vs. Hampton: Levee, 
Ponsony ads: Debsillon: Appeal, 
Postlewaite ve: Hunt & al: Appeal, 
Potts vs. Pleasants al. Appeal, 
Poydras’ Ex’rs ads. Dunean’s. Shipper, 

Patin. Continuance, 

Prevost &f wife vs. Greig & al. Appeal, 
Priou vs. Adams. - Act, 
Prudhemme vs. Marphy. Certiorare, 
Pardy & al. vs. Woods & al. partnership, 





PAGE 
- 187 
305 


637 
386 
682 
207 
667 


149 
639 
273 


651 
550 
78 


14 
273 
367 
127 
32t 


389 
42 
89 
127 
492 
639 
87 
692 
90 
626 

















TABLE OF CASES, 


Rawle vs. Fennessee. practice, 

Reels vs. Knight. partition, 

Rees vs. Dejean. Interest, 

Reynolds vs. Thomas. practice, 
ads. Miller. Laws, 

Richards vs. his ereditors. Cession, 

Robb ads. Irwin. Appeal, 

Robert vs. Tanner. Verdict,” 

Roberts vs. Kinchen & al. Curator, 

Robins vs. Weeks. Tutor, 

Roques & al. ads. Gradnigo. Appeal; 






PAGE 


il 


76 
152 
665 


84 
254 
416 


- 879 


Rost vs. St. Francis’ church. Appeal, amendment, 191 


Rouquier’s heirs vs. hisexecutors. Grant, 
Russel ads.JCommandeur, Notice, 
ads, Glase. Appeal, 


Saucier ads. Barbarin. Conveyance, 
Saul vs. his creditors. Wife, 
Saunders vs. Ingram. appeal, 
vs. Harding’s heirs. Esiaie, 
Shimmin vs. Jones. Frazd, 
Shipp vs Benson. novation, 
Sigura ads Abat. practice, 
Skilman & wife vs. Lacy. Court of probates, 
Smith vs. Hunter. Discontinuance, 
Evidence, 
Hanrathy. practice, 
’ Southward & al. vs. Bowie. attachment,' 
Sprigg vs. Boissier and wife, Wife, 
Wells. practice, : 
St. Francis’ church ads. Rost. appeal, 
Stafford vs. Stafford. Court of probates, . 
Demand, 
Verdict, 
State vs. Louis. State Bank. State bonds, 
Stirling ve. Johnson & wife. Release, 
Stille ve Brownson. Sheriff's sale, 
Stirling & wife vs. Drew & al, possession, 


Vol. V. N.S. c 





98 
456 
237 


361 
569 


62 
463 
154 

78 

50 
164 


318 
151 


104 
191 
136 
145 
162 
387 
362 


203 
























TABLE OF CASES. 


Stone ve Havard. Injunction, 

ads. Castleman. Wetness, 
Strong vs. Morgan. Contract, 
Swift ads. Mower & al. Court of probates, 


Tanner vs. Robert. Widow, 
Tayler, vs: Hollander: Executor, 
Thatcher vs. Walden: attorney, 
Thibodeau ads. Day andwife: will, 
Thomas ads. Flood: witness, 
Reynolds. practice, 
Callihan‘s heirs. Transfer, 
Thompson ve. Linton & al. = Jury, 
Tippet ad. Hooter’sheirs: possession, * 
Towles ads: Bayon: slave, 
Townsend ads: Caldwell : attachment, 
Turnbull vs: Freret: execwion, 


Turner ads: Fluker, executor, 


United States vs: Baulos: privilege, 


U:S. Bank vs: Johnson: witness, 


Wakeman vs. Marquand & al: Verdict, 
Walden ads: Thatcher : power of attorney, 
Watson’s heirs ads: Clarke: appeal, 
Weeks ads: Robins: Tutor,} 

Weils ads: Spriggs Practice, 


vs: Hunter: res judicata, 


Wells’sheirs vs: Baldwin: Sous seing prive, 


Whitaker €7 al: ads: Allain: protests, 
White vs:j Cummin: Damages, 


Wilson ads: Bullard: promissory note, 


and wife ade: Baillio & al. Court of 


probates, 
Woods vs: Kimball: preemption, 
Wrigt:t cdo: Clarke. Insolvent. 


ve: Tiorman & al Sheriff, 


Zacharie vs: Orlean: ‘ns: tc: Jnsurance, 





PAGE 
126 


282 
144 
529 


254 
295 
494 

48 
559 
152 
180 
261 
169 


$07 
703 
707 


567 
310 


265 
494 
100 
379 
104 
119 
146 
511 
694 
196 


214 
246 
122 
235 

















[No change took place, in the officers of 
the Supreme Court, while the cases were 
pending that are reported in this volume.] 











