The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-05-09

|
ceplon of votes exhibited in the record, is protest
| made by the successful candidates.
| we are not to be understood saying that n
party can in no case be heard to impeach an cleo
| ton over which he presided, and the legality of
| votes which he himself, as commissioner, received
case might where the illegality rested upon
facts, as to which the party subsequently complain
ing was ignorant at the time, and was without the
| means of knowledge. Consent, induced by error
is not binding in the eye of the law. But the peti
| ton contains no such allegation, and no foundation
therefore has been laid in the pleadings or even in
the evidence for departure from wholesome and
! equtably general rule.
! A variety of points discussed at bar, which
IN consequence of the views already expressed, we
do not deem it necessary to enlarge. 1t is, how
| ever, not improper 10 observe, that although the
charter of the Bank declares that the directors
shall be elected by plurality of votes of qualified
stockholders, and although the petitioners have
admitted, i'll the petition, that the persons whose
| an7cton is asked, had nominal majority, they
have not proved that single illegal vote was given
IN lavor OF those persons, that single ile
| gal vote was received ut all
Three of the defendants, Peters Shaw and Con-
| verse, filed an answer, IN which they they
have resigned the Offices of Directors of the Louisi-
ana State Bank under the election sci forth in the
Petition and disclan all title to be Directors of the
said Bank in virtue of said election. TWAS alleged
| in The petition, that Peters, Converse and Shaw
were, al the time Of being voted for, Directors of
| the City Bank, and so continued until after The 5ih
| inst II is questionable whether the disclaimer as
framed, is TO be deemed an admission on their part;
Of the existence of the alleged disability But if it
he SO considered, IL cannot be regarded binding
| on the other defendants who have not c0ncurred in
| IT, nor on the corporation No evidence as been
| adduced that such disability existed. and the plain
lifts counsel, i'll his brief admits that the disclaimer
by the three IN alters the issue for the
other sx, who formally denied all the allegations Of
| the petition except such expressly admitted
1t is proper to add that the appeal is taken by the
| six directors.
| While it is the duty of our courts to grant the
extraordinary remedy OF quo uarra',to to all those
| who are entitled to 1t under the liberal provisions
of our code, it is equally their duty to administer
the remedy with reference TO the principles recog
| niZ ID in that Jurisprudence from which the writ
| was derived, so far those principles consis-
| tent with the spirit Of our Institutions, and with
| sound reason and equity Discussions and law
| suits between the members of corporation. like
| quarrels in family, or partnership, danger
| Gus 10 lis well being. and those who bring matters
pertaining to its administration before the tribunals,
| ought not only TO prove that irregularities have
| been committed, but should also be free from the
objection of having participated or acquiesced III
| them. 4 cOur Of justice IN such eases cannot be
expected to take assertions fer proof, hear
| a party whose complaints Inconsistent with his
| own conduct.
| When any competent stock holder presents before
| us in which The irregularities are proved,
| which COM planned Of by the plaintiffs, and are
| ia their turn asserted in recri,natJon hy the de-
PENDANTS, 1t will be duty 10 declare their legal
| effect. Until then ii is unnecessary, and would be
| improper to do SO.
Upon the question Of the Jurisdiction of this
| Court, which was suggested by the plaintiffs we
deem il unnecessary to do more than refer 10 the
| reasons given by the District Judge on the motion
| taken below set aside the order Of appeal. The
allegation of The petition was, that the dlrec-
tors did induct themselves on the 18th instant
into the Bank Directors, and pretending them
| selves did proceed TO elect Samuel J. Peters as
their President, aud have taken unlawful possess
sion of said institution to the loss and injury of the
| stockholders to large amount, and of your petit
TONERS in particular stockholders, in a ex-
| ceeding five thousand dollars
| 1t is therefore ordered adjudged, and decreed
that the judgment of the Court below be reversed,
and that the petition of the plaintiffs be dismissed
the plaintiffs paying costs in both courts.
JAMES HAMILTON rs. F. c. BRADY. .Apoeal
from the Third Distric, Court Of Nesv OfleanS.
SLIpELL, j.. Judgment affirmed with COSTS
The General Council of New Orleans has the power to tax
retailers Of Soda under the statute of Jan II,
1872. explanatory of the powers of that Council.
MUNICIPALITY No. ONE Us. FELIX MANUEL,
| AppeaL front the Fourth Justice of the Peace for The
Parish Of Orleans. :. .EUsTIs, C. j.. Appeal by
| defendant from q Judgment by which the amount
of tax and the price of a license was adjudged to
| General Council Of New Orleans. imposing said
tax on the retailers of soda water in New Orleans,
| with the exception of apOihecaries. Per curidn :
We think this ordinance is not Illegal but is war
| ranted by fair construction of the Act OF JAM IL,
1912, entitled " An Act explanatory of the powers
of the General Council of The city Of New Orleans" "
Judgment affirmed with costs.
WIN. HOWELL & Sons Us. CARLOS CRUzAr &,
Co, j. & r. GEDDEs, GARNIsHEEs. Appeal from
~ l,.J Of Ir11a
| c. j.. :. Judgment affirmed with costs.
An administrator who Illegally raises mortgage held by
property bank real estate belonging the succession
which has been sold aud purchased by another party,
will be decreed to reimburse to the Recorder of Mort
anyJudgment that may have been rendered against
him at the suit of the purchaser who had previously been
condemned to satisfy the mortgage of the bank,
| outstanding Its erasure
PIERRE LANDREAux u.s. PHILIPPE MARsouDET
appeal from the Fifth District Court of Ne,c Or.
leans. .EUsTIs, G.. J. Defendant was admins
traitor OF certain succession, the property of which
was adjudicaied at judicial sale, and p. Chige be-
came The purchaser. On the property purchased
by Chige there existed a mortgage in favor of the
Bank of Louisiana. The purchase money was
To remain deposit until this mortgage could be
raised. Defendant withdrew the money in deposit
without the privily of Chge, and raised the mort
gage, on his own instance, and without the know.
ledge consent of the Bank, which then sued
| IIl1e anu reCoNtrtu against hin iHe dHi'uHt vi
its mortgage with costs. Berol Us. Citizens
Eank, l An. 1l9; Alng Us. Citizens Bank,
An and other authorities. Chige then sued Lam
dreaux, the Recorder Of Mortgages, for Illegally
erasing the mortgage in question, and had judge
ment against him. Landreaux now sues Marsou
def, the administrator, 10 recover from him the
amount of the Judgment thus rendered against him
There jud gment in Landreaux's favor, anG
Marsoudet appealed. The Judgment below was
affirmed with costs. h!arsoudet had called il
warranty Two of the creditors Of the succession
whom it was alleged the funds had been distrlbr
ted 1t was held that even admitting defendant
right of action against these creditors, it was pre-
scribed by Art. 1l16 G. &.
| CHARLES STOUGHToN,
Family Grocer No. 81 CAMP Street,
| IL EEPS constantly ON hand . cnmpIete a..ohnent o