GAYLOR v. GOPES. . — 49
of a deceased actor, (or otherwise state explicitly any right which the aetorde-
sires to reserve.) . ’
Pnoomman. Several of the cases indicate that it is proper to join the seo-
ond employer as co-defendant, and to draw the injunction so as in terms to V
forbid him to employ the chief defendant, as well as prohibit the latter from
performing.(n) Whether the practitioner may have a me exeat as well as in-
junction, see De Rioajinoli v. Oorsetti.(o) What action lies in behalf of an _
injured manager or other employer against a rival or competitor for inducing
artists of his company or employes in his establishment to leave his service,
see Bowen v. HalZ.(p) Bnmamm VAUGHN Annorr.
New York, N. Y. ‘
(n) Clarke v. Price, 2 Wils. Ch. 157; Lumley v. (ol 4 Paige. 264 ; Sauquirlco v. B¤¤€¤1¤fU» I
Wagner, 1 De Gex, MJ: G. 604; Burton v. Mar- Barb. 315; Hayes v. Willio, ll Ahh. Pr. (N. S.)
shall. 4 Gill, 487 ; Hamblin v. Dlnneford, 2 Edw. 167. V
Ch. 528. ‘ . (p)20Am. L, Reg. (N. s.) ais, and note. m.
— 587. .
Glues v. Cores." ‘
(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. February, 1883.) p _
1. Tasnsserron on Coiurnomrsr:-LA. Crvrr. CODE,'ART. 3073.
Transactions regulate only the diiferences which appear clearly to be com•
prehended in them by the intention of the parties, whether it be explained in
a general or particular manner, unless it be the necessary consequence of what
is expressed, and they do not extend to differences which the parties never in- ~
tended to include in them; The renunciation, which is made therein to all
rights, claims, and pretensions, extends only to what relates to the differences
on which the transaction arises. La. Civil Code, art. 3073. .
2. Wetmaivrr.
Wherever there is a sale, or an exchange, or a giving in payment- of property,
unless waived by the contract, there is an implied warranty that the person so
selling, or exchanging, or giving in payment is the owner of the thing sold,
exchanged, or given. The same rule prevails in case of a settlement between
debtor and creditor where property wholly outside of the differences between
the parties is given in payment.
t Davie v. Lee, 20 La. Ann. 248, distinguished. ,
Wright v. Temple, 13 La. Ann. 413, followed,
On Rule for a New Trial. .
About the facts in the case,. as developed by the evidence on the
trial, there can be no dispute. The following may be taken as a full _ .
and fair statement:
Ifrior to the war the firm now represented by plaintiff had dealings with .
the firm of Copes & Phelps, of which defendant is now the representative,
'Reported by Joseph P. Horner, Esq., ot the New Orleans bar.
v.16,n0.1—4 ’ _