1831, until paid, with costs in the District Court, and that EASTERN DIS. they pay costs in this court. March, 1833. Mercier, for appellant. Rogers and L. C. Duncan, for appellee. ARMISTEAD vs. BOWDEN. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST DISTRICT. A sale made in another state of slaves in this, must be registered in this state in the manner required for a sale made here, before it can affect a third party. M Caleb and Gray, for appellant. 1. The property attached was not the property of the defendant, the same being clearly proven to belong to Indiana Bowden, the intervening party. 2. The assignment was made and duly recorded before the service of the attachment. Peirce, contra. 1. The assignment is on the face of it void, and without consideration. 2. The transfer of the slaves was never recorded in the register of conveyances' office, or the office of the parish judge for the parish of Iberville. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court pronounced by PORTER, J. ARMISEATD vs. BOWDEN. EASTERN DIS. YEATMAN vs. ERWIN ET AL. This action was commenced by attachment, and the case comes before us on an appeal by the intervenors, who set up title to the property attached in the hands of the garnishee. The appellants claim under a sale made in the state of Virginia, the slaves were not delivered when the attachment was laid, nor was any registery ever made in this state of the A sale made in conveyance by which they were acquired. The plaintiff, this, who was a third party to the act, cannot be affected by it, another state of ed in this state in until it was duly recorded here. The slaves were within this the manner requi red for a sale state when the contract abroad took place; and it is clear made here, before party. it can affect a third that the conveyance made there cannot have greater effect than a similar one executed within the limits of Louisiana which was unregistered could have. 2 La. Reports, 122. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court, be affirmed with costs. YEATMAN vs. ERWIN ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE SECOND PRESIDING. A commission directed to any magistrate of a county in another state, and executed by a person who calls himself, and is certified by the clerk of the county, to be one of the justices thereof, cannot be read if objected to when offered, but the objection can be taken only at that time. If notice of protest is shown to have been sent to the endorser at a post office in the parish where he resides, it lies with him to show that there is another post office nearer to his residence. Peirce, for appellants. 1. The commission was not duly executed; there was no proof that Mr. Boss, who executed it was a magistrate. March, 1833. 2. It is not proved that the post office established by law, EASTERN Dis. nearest the residence of defendant was Desobry's post office. 3. There is no such office as Desobry's post office known to the law. Porter and Eustis, for appellees. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court pronounced by MATHEWS, J. The defendants are appellants from a judgment on a note endorsed by their ancestor, and they claim a reversal on the ground that a deposition was read, notwithstanding the absence of any proof of its having been made before the proper officer; and that there was no legal evidence of notice of non-payment having been given to their ancestor. YEATMAN vs. ERWIN ET ALS. rected to any ma ty in another state person who calls certified by the The commission was directed to any magistrate of the county A commission diof Wilkinson, in the state of Tennessee; and it appears to gistrate of a counhave been executed by a gentleman who calls himself, and and executed by a is certified by the clerk of the court of the county to be one himself, and is of the justices thereof. It is certain the objection would clerk of the counhave been fatal, if the defendants had sought to avail them- the justices thereselves of it, before they suffered the deposition to be read in when offered, but the first court. But after having refrained to object there, be taken only at they cannot be allowed to do so here. The letter of the notary to the endorser, enclosing the notice was directed to "Joseph Erwin, Desobry's post office, Iberville, Louisiana." The record shows that Iberville is the parish in which the endorser resided, no evidence was given at the trial that there was another post office in the parish, nor any (in another parish) nearer to his residence. A new trial was asked on the affidavit of one of the attor neys of the defendants, who deposed that there are two post offices in the parish of Iberville; that the one called by the notary Desobry's, is not established by the act of congress, under that name, but he believes by that of Plaquemine. It appears to us the new trial was properly denied; no merits were sworn to; it was not stated that the office to ty, to be one of of, cannot be read if objected to the objection can that time. EASTERN DIS. which the letter was directed is not nearer the endorser's March, 1833. residence than the other office in the parish, and it appears the affiant well knew by the designation the office which was intended. GASQUET ET ALS. vs. KOKERNOT ET ALS. On the merits, we think that when notice is shown to have If notice of pro- been sent to an office in the parish in which the endorser test is shown to have been sent to the endorser at a post office in the resides, it lies with him to show that there is in the parish, or parish where the elsewhere, another office nearer to his residence. defendant resides, it lies with him to show that there is another post office nearer to his residence. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs. GASQUET ET ALS vs. KOKERNOT ET ALS. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST DISTRICT. In all cases of contracts or promises above five hundred dollars, the testimony of a single witness, without proof of corroborating circumstances, is insufficient. In a suit on an alleged promise to pay the debt of another, the defendant may show that he has, several times about the period of the alleged promise, refused to pay the other's debts due to other persons, although the plaintiff in making out his case has not attempted to prove the reverse. Preston, for appellants. 1. But a single witness supports the contract on which the defendant is sued, and he is unsupported by circumstances. 2. It is a contract against which the presumption of law exists. It is opposed by circumstances, and the testimony of of three witnesses. March, 1833. 3. The District Court erred in excluding evidence from EASTERN DIS. the jury, which should have been admitted. Conrad, for appellees. 1. The verdict of the jury was correct. 2. The evidence referred to in the bills of exceptions was improperly excluded; because, in itself, it affords no presumption that the defendant did not agree to guarantee this particular debt, or at least so near to a presumption that a jury would attach no weight to it; and because it is admitted that subsequently to the original agreement on which this suit is founded, she did agree to guarantee this particular debt, provided a prolongation of time were allowed her without interest. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, delivered by MATHEWS, J. This suit was commenced against D. L. Kokernot, as purchaser of certain merchandise from the plaintiffs; also against widow Kokernot & Son, united in a commercial firm; and likewise against the widow, in her individual capacity. The petition charges the two last parties as sureties, or guarantors of the purchaser of the goods. The whole case was submitted to a jury in the court below, who found a general verdict for the plaintiffs, and judgment being thereon rendered for the sum of one thousand four hundred and ten dollars and thirty-one cents, the defendant widow Kokernot, appealed. The testimony of the case fully establishes the fact of the purchase and delivery of the merchandise to the defendant, D. L. Kokernot. The record affords no evidence of any assumpsit of guaranty or suretyship on the part of Kokernot & Son, as a commercial company; and the assumpsit alleged against Mrs. Kokernot, is positively proven by one witness, and proof of corroborating circumstances, which were probably sufficient to produce conviction on the minds of the GASQUET vs. KOKERNOT ET ALS. |