Baton Rouge tri-weekly gazette & comet. [volume] (Baton Rouge, La.) 1865-18??, 1866-07-03
IMPORTANT DECISION.

District Courts in New Orleans,
in the suit of "Pike, Lapeyre &
Brother, VS.. Stocker, State Tax Col
lector." This decision has just been
re-affirmed by the Supreme Court.
We give below the decision entire
as rendered by Judge Duplantier,
which we find in late New Orleans
Picayune
The plaintiffs in this case who are
co-partners, doing the banking bust
ness in this city, under the name
and style Of Pike, Lapeyre & Brother,
allege that some time since the de-
PENDANT, who is the State Tax Col
lector, demanded Of them for their
State license the sum of $4,000, which
they paid, although they claimed
that the license chargeable to them
did not exceed $1,000; that the pay
ment was made under the express
agreement that the amount should
be held by the collector, subject to
the decision Of the proper authorities
of the State, as to whether or not
the full amount demanded was due,
but that they fear the collector, not
withstanding the agreement, will,
unless restrained, part with the en-
tire amount paid to him. Hence
they pray for an injunction and for
Judgment commanding the State Col
Iector to refund to them the sum Of
$4,000 of the amount paid as afore-
said. There is no dispute as to the
facts of the case. The payment of
the three thousand dollars, as well
as the agreement are admitted but
it is contended by the defendant
that the whole amount paid was due
to the State by the plaintiffs for
their license as banker under the
18th section Of the act Of the Legis-
lature passed on the 4th of April,
1865, which says that there shall be
collected from each and every banker,
banking company, or agency, not in
corporated by the laws Of this State,
the sum of $1,000 as a license. Ac-
cording to this legislative enactment,
it must be conceded, land, indeed, SO
it was conceded, in argument), that
if the firm of Pike, Lapeyre Il
Brother is banking company, unin-
corporated, the parties composing it,
no matter what may be their number,
owed collectively and not individu-
ally to the State a license of $1,000;
for it is shown that the banking
business is not carried on by them
Individually, but by them collec
lively, in the name and for account
Of their firm; that if, on the other
hand, the firm is not an unincor-
porated company, in contemplation
of law, then the license was charge
able to each partner as an individual
banker, and the State Collector cor
rectly demanded the three thousand
dollars paid as aforesaid. The sole
question to be decided, then, is,
whether or not the firm of the
plaintiffs is an unincorporated bank
ing company. That it has never
been incorporated is admitted; that
it is doing the banking business is
shown; but is it an association
which, in contemplation Of law, can
he considered as company?
Should the question be left to
photographers, the plaintiffs would
have no need to fear the result of
their controversy. The most es-
teemed of these assimilate the word
company to the words partnership or
corporation. Webster, in his defini-
ton of it, says: at signifies num-
Der Of persons united for the same
purpose, or in a joint concern as a
company of merchants or mechanics,
company of players" He adds,
"the word is applicable to private
partnership or to incorporated bodies
of men" Hence it may signify
frm-hence any partnership-or a
corporation, as the East India Com
pany, or a banking or insurance
company. Writers on commercial
law, when consulted, inform us that
an unincorporated company is in
contemplation of law no more than a
mere partnership. See Story on
Partnerships, pages 1l6, III and
us; also, Collyear on the same
subject.
The last authors language is not
clear and explicit. (The authors
language is given in the decision in
fully. The law holds the members
of an unincorporated company, and
those of an ordinary partnership,
bound in the same manner and to the
! l.. I'LL