The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-12-01

and soul. and give only even handed, exact and
equal justice. --.
Col. Miles Taylor, attorney for Mr.. Morgan;
| sueing for Judgment on bonds and coupons held
| by him, next addressed the court
The case now stands thus: James 7. Tucker
petitions that the Opelousas Railroad Company be
| declared bankrupt, alleging, first. that the com
paDy suspended at particular time the payment
of It's interest coupons presented to 1t by james
| T. Tucker and by - Wallis. Second, that on
| Feb. 90 1868. the company paid to L. ID. Aldrich,
| of Caodo parish, $3.50 for coupons held by MN,
thereby preferrDg him to its other creditors, TO
| their manifest and great detrment. The answer OF
the defendant says that the allegations of the pc
/ titon are untrue, because their intentions we're
never fraudulent, and that no act Of bankruptcy
| or Of insolvency had ever been committed fur
| Their. thar Mr.. Tucker never held the coupons 10
| good faith. Subsequently Paul Acona filed Pc
tion adopting the allegations of Mr.. fuckers Pc
| ttion, and asking also that the company De de-
| clared bankrupt. After tho suit was commepced
tender of the amounts due was made by the
| company TO Messrs. Tucker and AcOus. which
! tender was declined, after which Mr.. Tucker sp-
| peared in court and made affidavit that in the
| Offering of the money the company had committed
| fraud by preferTing himself and Mr.. Acona TO
| other creditors Then Mr.. Cohen. couueel for the
| road, filed an exception to the further appear
snce of the plaintiffs their claims not being prov
able under the bankrupt law, as they were Sc
cured by a mortgage. Then one If not both of the
| plaintiffs had signed paper entirely renouncng
all mortgage claims which they held against the
| company.
| Mr.. Cohen then took up the question as to
whether a railroad corporation comes under the
provisions OF the bankrupt law. The original
bankrupt laws Of England only included trades
trsdesmen are engaged In those transactions
which may necessitate bankruptcy. The United
States government, by the constitution has full
| power TO enact uniform bankrupt laws. Twenty
| five years ago a bankrupt act was passed which
was entirely silent about corporations. The last
| act embraced O. all monied, business and CONNER
| cial corporations and joint stock comp anies.'
Now. in the construction of this law, the intent OF
| the lawmakers must be considered. Railroad
companies are not trading corporations, business,
| moned or commercial ones. They give facilities
to trade and travel but do not trade themselves.
They cannot be said to- come under the strict pro-
visions of the act. They exist for the public ben,
fit, and are public works. They are not included
in the spirit of the bankrupt act; for that reason
all proceedings should fall.
The next question is, are the petitioners,
Messrs. Tucker and Acona. qualified to institute
suit against the company. Tbs coupons they hold
are secured by mortgage. True, they had released
their security. but this did not alter the case.
Their debt being thus sseuTsS are not holders
Ine Obligations in good faith. A decision Of the
Supreme Court of the United States. The law
allows the Supreme Court of the United States to
fix the forms TO be filed out, and thus gives to
those forms the weight of law. By one of these
| forms the creditor Is made 10 swear that he did
not obtain the claim for the purpose of influencing
| The proceedings under the operation OF the bank
rupt law. Now, that these coupons for which
suit was instituted had been procured for the pur'
| pose of forcing the company INTO bankruptcy was
evident because the holders had fused TO accept
the value of them rendered in open court
Judge Durell here interviewed, declaring that
| the law was that II the creditor had received the
money, they would have TO pay it back TO the
| assignee and receive nothing. Therefore the
| petitioners, Messrs. Tucker and Acona, were
justified In refusing to accept the tender, as u
/ IA I'D Nknxru 1nlA hau Insf al
claim upon the company. and been compelled to
refund the money thus accepted.
Col. Taylor resumed. How the coupons sned
for had been obtained could not be stated. But
| the use TO which they had been put would make /;
appear that they had been bought for The purpose
Of using the law to commit fraud.
| The law was made TO enable creditors TO get
payment. Now such was not the object OF The
men who now en6eavor to take advantage OF itf
provisions. They don't want payment, for they
have refused payment. They want to wind ~
the affairs OF the company to carry out some
| Interior views of their own. Such being the case
| the court should refuse TO hear the petitioners
their animus being evil.
The argument will be concluded to-day
probably.
Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court met yesterday. and sfte
the reading of the minutes the following decision
we're delivered:
| BY CHEF JUSTICE J. T. LUDELING.
No. ll33-E. Thompson & Co. vs.. Alfred Moul
| ton.
D On rehearing. In this case, having decided tina
. | the potestative condition upon which the pena
| clause was to become exigible. had not happened
0 the court should have rendered Judgment as i
= | case OF non suit
. When the demaad is premature, or if the obi
| CATION be conditional and its execution be dc
| manded before the condition has been fulfilled, tn
: suit must be dismissed, leaving to the party b
O light TO bring his action in due time. q. Z. l5o
|, | Is La. 404; Is La. 5S7.
9 that the judgment of this court. rendered on to
4tb day of May 1868, be amended and that tn
Judgment Of the district court be avoided an
= | reversed. 1t is further ordered, adjudged an
u decreed that there be judgment in favor OF ID
defendant as in case OF non-suit; that the plant
Is pay the costs OF the lower court, and that ID
u defendant and appellee pay the costs Of Il
70 appeal.
% Nc. l7S5-Staie of Louisiana ex rel j.
@ O'Hara VS.. Ed. Heath, mayor city Of New Orlean
N | intervenor
= The application for rehearing in this case
W refused. :.
n miss which was enormously permitted to be hl'
d | whilst the court celebrating on the apollo
lie ton for a new hearing. c. p. 9l2, ii A., 6Oi,
is AND. 1855.
% BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE W. g. WILEY.
- No. l429-Msry G. Shaw, wife etc., sppelle
~ vs. Artemus Hill ct a., appellants-Appea fro
n the Fourth District Court, parish of Orleans.
~ This is an Injunction taken out by plsintln to
strain her husbands judgment creditor. A. Iii
ar from selling two lots and Improvements IN Algei
"a which, she alleges, is her paraphernal propert
Ne the same having been bought by her 10 the mon
n Of May, 1856. The deed was passed before H.
ne Caire, notary public, and was not recorded
m | after the SEIZURE to- wit I'd February, 1866.
In Plaintiff was a married woman at the time q
70 | purchase was made in her name, and was dn
ne | authorized thereto by her husband, Chas w. W
40 | son. The act of sale recites that she pa
n $500 cash tout of funds belonging to her perso
IN | ally" and executed her note to the vendor
"a $50, the balance of the price.
mt Aanpaa5T ASsS tbs gEePery was seized
m. ant Hill va her husband, Wilson, rendered on 10
ds | November, 1896.
n. On the trial there was judgment perpetuati
e. the injunction and decreeing the defendant Hill
NO | paw $500, damages and costs.
er Defendant has appealed
no | On a careful examination OF the record We n
rel that only two witnesses were introduced by pla
he tiff TO prove that the funds with which she bong
re the property in question were her separate fun
an and their evidence is not conclusive. They do
A. g., maid hura we aaQt