
    PASSEBON vs. HIS CREDITORS.
    Eastern Dist.
    June, 1836.
    
    A.rPEAL FROM the tarish court for the tarish and city oe NEW-ORLEANS.
    When the Supreme Court, on examining and weighing the evidence on which the verdict is founded, is unable to agree with the jury, and jus- - tice requires it, the case will be remanded for a trial do novo.
    
    This case has already been before this’ court. See 9 Louisiana Reports, 189.
    On the return of the case to the Parish Court, it was tried ■on the opposition of Brette & Vincent, on a charge of fraud against the insolvent, sworn to by Edward Vincent. The case on this charge was submitted to a jury, with a mass of testimony, taken by the respective parties, who returned a verdict of “not guiltyFrom judgment confirming this verdict, the opposing creditors appealed.
    
      Morphy and Grailhe, for the plaintiff and insolvent,
    made ■the following points •:
    1. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in a case of this nature, there being no specific sum of money in controversy. See the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of Louisiana.
    
    
      2. The jury are the sole judges in a question of fraud, set up against an insolvent. See sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Insolvent Law of 1817.
    3. In this case there is no oath of the proper party at the foot of the opposition, as required by law; no man can swear by proxy, unless expressly authorized by law. See Foucher’s case, 7 Louisiana Reports.
    Where the Su-on'^'examin'inl the evidence'ol which the ver-diet is founded, is unable to agree with the jury, and Justice requires it, the case will be remanded for a taal de novo'
    
    4. In any event, the verdict of the jury must be maintained, the same being in conformity with the law and evidence adduced.
    5. The Supreme Court will not disturb the verdict, unless rendered manifestly in opposition to the evidence.
    On these points, the appellant relies for the confirmation of the judgment rendered in his behalf.
    
      Soulé and Murat, for the opposing creditors and appellants.
   Martin J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case there is a verdict for the insolvent. We have ■carefully examined and weighed the evidence on which it was rendered, and it is impossible for us to concur with the jury. It appears to the court that justice requires a trial J J ■de nOVO.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the . . , ... .. , . judgment of the Parish Court be annulled, avoided and reversed ; the verdict set aside and the cause remanded for a new trial; the costs to be paid out of the proceeds of the .ceded property.  