The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-02-10
The Supreme Court.


Nos ST. SO, and l44-Those cases were resumed again
to-day. and MIR Goodrich resumed his argument upon
which mentioned yesterday, in behalf Of the defend
ants in error Mr. Goodrich closely followed the
points indicated and In support thereof after which No
l44 Huston ct al, plaintiffs in error City Bank Of
New Orleans, defendants in error from the Supreme
Court of Louisiana taken up being arranged
entirely argued and then Mr. Wsbstsr Win close IN.
whole, by an answer to Mr.. Goodrich
Mr.. R4vERpY JOHNSON in behalf of tho plaintiffs in er.
ror opened Louisiana case by sting cty the
facts leading to the He stated that this
the sam. with the two others upon one principle but
had NO analogous points in the other cases There
fore he would condn. himself to-day to the question
whether the District Courts Of the United hold
exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of bankruptcy
The present before this Court upon writ
Court Of Louisiana where this case originated It com
menced by bill filed by the defendants in error OF the
1897 Thomas Banks who Afterwards beoams bankrupt,
was indebted to the defendants in
the rum Of on his bond to which, he had
morgaged certain property 10 New Orleans bank
About the time Of the filing Of the bill, there
was balance due to the bank of s44 900,
which had been demanded Of MIR. Conrad, the
assignee in bankruptcy Of the original borrower
| Thomas Banks, who refused to pay the same
The court would see that tn. conplansnts rest their
title the Continuance of this mortgage its force
and validity the day Of fling the bill In ths bill there
is no averment Of any undue means unrness by the
IT, whether this mortgage was vada on the day Of
filing the bill On the 30h of July, s4a Banks filed his
bankruptcy:
tition heard in st. 1t was declared that the
mortgage to the City Bank there two others-one
in favor Of the New Orleans Canal Banking Company
and one Ia invcr OF canal and railroad company Upon
the petition he declared q bankrupt and Mr. Con-
raj appointed assignee Of his estate On the 10th
OF October 1872 the assignee applied to the District
Court for order for the property and for decree
sale On the 9th Of January lsa3, decree granted
and ordered that the take place on the 10th
of February ls43 To that decree the rst mortgage
| (the Canal Banking Company consented The decree
also directed that the several mortgages be cancelled
| npho a l0uv nf
refer hereaerthat the purchaser under the
cancellation might have clear title free all incum-
PENDANTS in error in their bill fled in a. ask that this
ale be set aside that the property be reso and their
third mortgage satisfied. No unfairness Is averred
against the assignee the purohasers others engaged
But the bank knew all the proceedings knew the
knew Of the SALE and knew all the steps by
parties yet took no means to stop the
until the time Of Cling this bill Whilst this was the con
duct OF the bank the with prudent
ton and care sought to the title they
to purchase any ncum brancts or legal claims ana
therefore, before they parted with their purchase
ney, refused to pay that purchase money till the
assignee who was the vender, under the sale would
under the direction Of the court under the provi
sons Of the code of louisiana all these
The court on the gath Of February, Is4a passed m
order that the first and original mortgsgee the Canal
Banking Company had assented to the SALE and that
the mortgages be ell cancelled On the 9Th Of March,
ls4s the order OF cancellation to tho parish
court the court Of record Of the mortgages and where
the cancellation was to BIS recorded and the
register OF that parish court 1.-THE official minister who
carry out the order Of cancellation refused to
obey the order Whsreupon the parish court issued
mandamus to compel the recorder to obey the order.
From the judg OF the parish upon this man
damus, appeal wss taken 10 the Supreme Court of
Louisiana and that oou Sith great unanmity almost
unanimously-wish or one exception affirmed the
decision Of the parish curt granting tho mAndamus.
The is reported In 9Th Robiusobs La Rep 40 On
the 5th Of October lss3 the lrst mortgages of the
bankrupt and who had consented the sale the dc.
petitoned the court to have the proceeds CT
sale applied to pay their mortgage This was done
the proceeds Of the sale fell short OF the their
mortgage some $4,000 During this whole time not
word of objection raised by the CITY Bank.
They did not object dispute the power of the court
who had proceeded on bankruptcy; they did not
deny tho power Of the court to decree O sale,
and they never objected that the sale would not
vest in the purchaser under the decree q title
free from and above all membranes, and of the
after these events the people OF Louisiana In the
cs Of that sovereign power which they possessed and
Of which the American peope are fond and perhaps
too fond became tired aud dissatisfied with the consti
tuition under which they lived aud which was their or
gsnic law and they called convention change their
system Of government and give them a new organizs-
ton. In that new organic law, the nature Of their
courts was changed was also the number OF the
bers Of these courts Many changes were made In the
persons composing those courts. Until this had hap
penedt City Bank had done nothing in relation this
a.ter had obj soted to single action that had
taken place Ia regard to the whole proceedings after
bankruptcy. Under court, however they did act
nt with all respect to the court below whose opinion
he was here to have changed Mr. j. would cav that 1t
hai gone very far In lite action and decision upon this
case II had not only decided that the decision of its
predecessors wrougthst the In 9Th Robinson,
was vrons-that the view Of the Law taken By the
whole prcfesdon throughcut the United etates which