The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-02-16
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condensed Deeisions-Ntw ORLEANS, Feb "a 1873

The liability of the sockholde of bank to its creditors
be % a!fS st
oans mote no! evidence as t. ne ms when they
eurilies or documents for debts they TO be treated
@ OF aud cash j. the 99sTE CO + sss I'D,
ling those banks heh had not III i apita eek then
Ba to ,b n,psPd md the Until tO a., and
rod should be deemed The capital stock Of salt banks.
called in by n directors u" to that time from ali La
bity to holders of bar * subsequently aequi.ed
capital sxngnished; and the OBJ hon, Of the
Original ,toekho des who have paid all ,hsil inst almeus
duced capital being only bound BY such ,eissue
HEPBURN TURPIN rs. THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE
NEW ORLEANS EXCHANGE AND BANKISG Co., ct al-.qp.
neal from rhe Fifth District Court Of NeD ORLEANS (Bu
ohandn, J3No III in the Supreme Court EusTIs. j..
Per curtain: " In 1889 egaiue pas ed
ave the banks of The State which had incurred the forfeit
ue OF the charters by suspension of specie ment from
ad FORFEITURE In the act it provided that such Of the
banks as have not their capital sock paid in suspend
the payment OF the stock until the fist day of Feb 1S4
and that the amount actually paid tnat period shall be
deemed The capital stock of said banks and tn hereby
restrained from dong business urge of capt.
tai der the rules prescrb by their charter. ct March
a. 1889, Sec g The chatter Of the Exchange and Bank
ing Co. was adjndged 10 be forfeited by judgement of tho
late Co the F Judicial District on the 18th March,
1872 The plaintiffs holders of s34 no of bank notes of
this Company, which in'o their pose snbss.
quently June s 1872 and the object this to
make the gina sockho fers severn! Of whom made
defendants liable for tine bank which his action is
bought 1t admitted that ths pendants have paid all
he nsalmepts called in by the .reeon uptot me fixed
buted all they wee bonna to Contribute to the capa as
reduced b, the of 1879 the question ted whe he,
of thsi Obligations ,esuing their ownership Of
'h4 sto The Dr ct Judge OF opinion that they were
ainffs have appealed.
10 We have
H s 1s ns b ei hy s ysy ass under
me net pom TO be ascerta,ned i as 70 he pree Sc rights
is ad it'd at tie act Of 1889 aeceptei by the
Of the Bank max that biar'Ps and oSss:
h to b al es,s Of es
eon bsaf sob 'hs ,he Of 1899 do 70, di@u;
ha ley still remained conTin gently liable or The tai
amount of the ubserpor; but that for thu Pr nose:
Ct, wa moi 10 be changed Although we have not been
the pacpa question Which decided yet 50 far a: the
opncn ssers The pneple thai the original liability Of the
by the aof soncuf in it. But continue in it.
their LIABILITY to 10 h without ems fP
,ank he Rank Itself eon.entins to IL Irdn"Gn The
ih ihei9 H elect ee Of II Il. m is Uniting
a. p car coS
ag a in s St ISL Is
psa 81 asy
that to e@ to % Hsds, 81 f bs
ank or the Re- ,sdpcOn is capital oS re thu sni
the Tight light o. Of such eredio1s '"'' '''
a large pr orion Of these notes hear in the yea.
he debt self tn date conciu i've and that there is no
other mods of as ming %he The noe no ss We u in s
beo the plaintiff sent themselves as the folders Of
e e pa osn and the Pal M conep hat he notes ccn
debt contracted by the INK in favor of the first hold
BY The section Il The OF 1889 the banks Of New
Drleas no nj 10 set and the balances due each
9TH MOnda Ornlng n
%onth 20 Gnbi'h >tStement OF lh.lr circulation depots
until 'rch isis when ssa ed redeem notes and
to that time rtce'ved daily and paid them OFT without
the q Of he act # f., 1882
c e noes each Sns he ohes
reprn.d the bank Of issue and the balance asseraired
Bank accord pgs receve its own notes and paid them ont
However true may be tia. in ordinary written obligations
money is evidence OF tn" time OF the on.in.
atom 10 bsnS noe They Constituted The principal part
the The Of e Of I %see Of the ws
enaced under an smergs1c, e. public emb r
the cu ney as measure required By the necessity Of The
The very fact of the notes being excludes
their uses currency No reon would take money
i subject the miles Of pecunsry OBJ s1ons and
Code has aee es emp,9s bank mites from the
Of hs ART spi s applicable to
Where of bank res:ued in the oft.
issuing ofthe abe date its face saIy becomes
and affords index The tins Of the
IGN Of tie obi ration OF the bank and the Legislature OF
1899 md the ofthe banks "nder jut noted exclude
any be neenre of the time of the IF bank
beng deduced from their date 1t follows therefore, that
the plaintiffs having n'O OF the sued
on 1t January 1913 evidence
Of the notes being debts Of the bank the ,educ
ton Of its capital under the law Of 1899 That they
originally the date imports but paid in bank after the
red action Of the cata they nGnshsd and the OBJ
LEGATION of the original stockho could not be revived by
reissue the bank with its reduced capital being only
| bound by snch reissue
These views be in accordance with that in which
the bank notes according to the highest and
| last approved autho'ite
Bank notes :" says Lord Mansfield in the Miller
Rure Rep 42 not goods not secnrt es or documents
as cash-p the ordinary and of husin
general IT mauk nd which gives them the cred
| il currency of 10 ~ intepts and purpose
Heath ps Snes 9Th Johnson, 12O Judah vs.. Harris 18th
| Johnson. li5 -, i, D... -.
ion tn the stock oer who defendants in this csse,
arr liz bic The pain ifs and su"h being o'nion,
becomes notice OF the points rsised in
he defence, TIL" Judgment OF the District on there
fore affirmed with costs Signr and Bonford. TO- plaintiff
and ants Ro eus Micou, May bin and ivn
| for defendants and appellees.
| Tuos w JOHNSON ADMINIsTRAT oR MRa. HON.
REsCHAMPAGNE Us JEAN b. BERNARD: Appeal from
rior SLIDELL In this case the Sup eme Cour, held
| that a due bill, not being negotiable instrument, not
subject the pre- crpon of five years but only Of ten
| wears Whiting Prentice IL Rob. 145 The Judgment
| of the lower onrt was affirmed with costs.
| JOHN L. LoBDELL RoBEsT CLARK. EFT. AL. .9p.
pea from the SiTth Judi-i District Curt. .ROsT -
| The Judgment below was affirmed rs. w.
SLAVE DEPOT.