The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-04-06

Ouen6ee. .I - - !
The First District Court win be In session this
incoming sufficient time only for calling the jury
and receiving reports of the grand jury. No
cases will be tried. Z, s.3
100 osl ,.. .iits.,1 M sesa.
FIRST DISTRICT CouRr.-The following sixteen
persons were yesterday selected By Judge Abel
to serve as grand jurors during the next quarter,
inclr ding the months Of April, May and June: E.
Toby, foreman; w. B. Armstrong v. Grosjean, p.
ditch, ]. E. Boehler, Louis Hickman, Chas. lie Bre.
ton, F. Snser. VIM. Carter, p. Harvey. John Du-
rant and Jos. Sordas, the last five named being
colored persons.
Col. A. p. Field yesterday hled rule In this
court upon the attorney general, to show cause
why new trial should not be granted in the case
of j. G. GreRor found guilty OF the killing Of John
Collens, mate of the Governor.
G. M. wickline, charged with maeasancs In Office,
and q new indictment filed in the same matter,
which is reported elsewhere.
In the case of Arthur Ssuselle, indicted for
assault and battery, nolle prosequi was also
Mary Scott charged with larceny, failing to
appear, her bonds were declared forfeited.
A verdict Of not guilty was returned 10 the case
OF Auguste Hummel, alias Richard Hummel, &C
cused Of assault and battery.
eIxTH DISTRICT CoURr.-John Henry vs.. Bank
OF Louisiana. Third opposition Of DR.. Lambert.
the defendant and caused the same to be recorded
and had some real estate belonging to the bank
seized. and was proceeding to cell u when the
third opponent interviewed and claimed to be paid
by preference out Of the proceeds OF the sale The
plaintiff is q mortgage creditor and the intervenor
and opponent o bill holder. The question which
the plesdings present 10, ~ between the plsinnn
and intervenor, which should be paid BY prefer
ence out Of the property Of the insolvent bank,
mortgage creditor or bill holder.
IL Is proper here to remark that the answer
| fled BY the commissioners Of the bank presents
must bedecided adversely TO the pre-
tensions of both the plaintiff and the third oppo-
nent These commissioners urge that no nnal
judgment can be rendered In favor OF each OF the
above clsimsnts, because the bank. having gone
ioto insolvency, all its assets must be surrendered
affairs with the view Of : general settlement in
| concsTso OF all the creditors.
| This is quite true, but II does not prevent
| Q determination Of the relative rank OF the two
creditors before the court. This decision may
be useless In concurso OF al the creditors, but
IL IL not for the court TO determine the practical
value TO tigsns of the relief which they seek. IL
s enough that they ask for ii and that the Law su-
In the case Of the State of Louisiana on the rule
taken by Becnsl W. the Bank Of Louisisna, the
| ssme question a. that presented by the present
| pleading was before the court.
| The question then was whether the commission
| ers could be forced to receive the circulating
notes OF the bank In payment OF debts due by IL.
After very careful examination OF the authorities,
the several acts OF ls42 and ls43 10 relation to the
| banks which had forfeited their charters BY the
| suspension of specie payment, and the interpre-
| tstion given to these statutes by our Supreme
Court, / came to the conclusion the commissioners
were bound to accept the bills OF the bank 10 pay
ment OF debts due to IT at the time Of the forfeiture
of Its charter. II had any doubt Of the correct
ness OF that decision the fact that the delays for
suspensivs appeal from its having elapsed without
any appeal being taken, would confirm my opln.
ion, as II would chow that the courts Themselves
concurred In it, legal propriety.
II appears to me that the principles OF that de-
cision determine the present controversy. IL u
useless to ssy that privileges are "stricts jurss,
that they cannot be extended BY implication OF
analogy, etc., etc. These are familiar principles
and Whenever there is any doubt whether the law
maker intended TO confer privilege or right Of
preference, they have their good effect. But In
this matter there can be no doubt that the legisla
iure intended that the bill holders should be paid
BY preference over all other creditors This inten
ton evidenced by the provisos OF the several &C
of 1913 on the subject Of the liquidation OF the
notes Of the insolvent bank obligatory not onl,
by the insolyent corporations but by all othel
| banks In this city which had forfeited thei
charters and had been relieved from the eject o.
this forfeiture by the act OF lS42. La the ACT re
vlring the charters ofibese banks the reception Q
the notes OF On insolvent bank IL made one OF tn
fundamental conditions Of the revival.
This policy OF the law seems TO have been die
tated by proper sense OF justice: The circuia
ton Of The banks was sanctioned by and author
lied By the law, and il was. the duty OF the law
maker to provide, az far ss be had power. for TIL
security OF those Who trusted to the solvency Q
institutions created by the law. Having BY II
permission originated the evil, II was but equity
| provide against its consummation Into positiv
But even II the acts of lsi7 did not establish
preference in favor of the bill holder over O.
| other creditors, the Constitutions OF 1852 an
1854 certainly did. As the plaintiffs and the In
| teryenors claims seemed to have originate
during the existence Of one of these Constitution
their provisions must govern the relative rank Q
the creditors. Article l20 Of the Consultation Q
| 1852 reada 10 follows:
: ain case OF insolvency Of any bank or bankin
association, the bill holders thereof shall be 81
| titled to preference in payment over oil oths
| creditors Of such bank or association.
7 Art. l22, Constitution Of 1854, 10 to the sam
. The application Of this article ss governing n
matter In issue in this case Is resisted on var
{ ous grounds BY the mortgage creditor.
1. Ills considered violation OF the Conssituho
OF the United States, because itimpairs the RICH
OF the Bank Of Louisiana under the charter, whic
: dated long anterior to the Constitution OF 1885,
: and also because 1t impairs the rights OF u
4 mortgage creditor.
1 II il not easy to perceive In what manner n
a articles 40 ofths Constitution Of 1852 and liz
2 the Constitution OF 1864 impair the charters
q rights OF the Bank Of Louisiana, for the slmp
3 reason that they neither add 70 the obliga.iol
a | originally enforced upon the bank, nor eubtrs
n | from any Of the rights or franchises conferr'
!. | upon IT, So far as the rights, franchises and o
legations Of the bank are concerned, they cam
be affected BY any subsequent law governing =
| rank or the manner In which the creditors OF q
bank shall be paid. Indeed, the articles IN que
sr ton are applicable only between the credito
g. 70 determine the order Of their payment.
81 They cannot be said 10 impair the rights OF 9
ie mortgage creditor In this CO Q, because II ~
10 tfon ra vi