The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-02-02


The following decisions were delivered yester-
day by this court. At the rate at which the court
is expediting the large business on the docket it
is to be hoped, as it sits only three days in the
week, the judges will earn their salary, and an
end of the cases be arrived at some time shortly.
AS things are going on now, both the lawyers and
the litigants are not over pleased with the amount
of work performed weekly. Would it be too much
to ask quid pro quo for what is paid in salaries
to the judges, in the lower courts as well as in
this?
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE W. W. HOWE.
No. -. The State, ex rel De Meza ct al. vs..
the Judge OF the Fourth District Court. An ap-
plicatioH for writ of prohibition. A. & NJ. Voor.
HES, Rays New and A. Pilot for plaIntifsj; G..
Schmidt for commissioner.
The relstor AYERS that on the 2lst December,
1867, by decree of the Fourth District Court OF
New Orleans, the Citizens Mutual Insurance Com
pany Of New Orleans, doing business under a
charter passed and adopted under the laws of the
State Of Louisiana. was forced into Involuntary
insolvency. and Henry Bezou was appointed By
the judge of said Fourth District Court commits
sicner of the insolvent corporation that subse-
quenty lily. Bezou filed in the Fourth District
Court suit against the REALTORS for damages due
10 him il bis capacity Of commissioner, amounting
to the sum Of $429, 235 IS that the REALTORS filed
en- exception to the jurisdiction Of the Fourth
District Court, averring "that the court from
which the said by. Bezou claims to have received
his appointment was at the time Of said
pretended appointment without jurisdiction
in the matter, and that said jurisdiction belonged
exclusively and properly to the courts of
the United States under the law generally
known as the bankrupt law, approved March q
1867 butt said District Court Judge overrued
the said plea and has since proceeded to take
further action in the premises. They insist that
the laws OF Louisiana on the subject Of forced
and voluntary insolvency have been virtually re.
pealed by the act of Congress Of March 2, 1867,
that the Fourth District Court has exceeded and
does exceed the bounds Of its jurisdiction by de-
creeiDg the forced surrender, etc., and by pro-
ceeding with the liquidation thereof in violation
of the laws and Constitution Of the United States
They pray for writ of prohibition to restrain the
Judge OF the Fourth District Court. etc., within
the bounds OF his jurisdiction, etc. The answer
OF The judge AYERS his competency to proceed in
the case, and sets forth the reasons why he be.
lieved himself to have had jurisdiction, both to
appoint the commissioner and to entertain the suit
brought by the commissioner against the REALTORS.
II Is BY no means clear that the REALTORS have
ever excepted to the jurisdiction of the Fourth
District Court IN the proceedings for
a declaration OF forfeiture Of the charter OF
the Citizens Insurance Company etc. The only
exception we find in the record IS filed In another
and distinct proceeding. namely: q personal &C.
ton &c dettcto, instituted by the commissioner
against the REALTORS, ETC. 1t s difficult therefore,
TO perceive how the Judge of the Fourth District
Court exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding thai
the plaintiff had been properly appointed in a
previous and distinct proceeding, etc, Bat
waving tnis pcint, and granting that
question of jurisdiction in the case in
which It was filed, etc., the question presents it.
sell whether the writ Of prohibition is the prooer
remedy In case like this. 1t is not pretended bv
the REALTORS that they are in the situation Of the
peutoners IN the case of Clarke vs.. Rosends.
70 H.. 10 where an order of seizure and sale had
peenssued, etc. 1t will not be commended that under
me CONSTITUTION we have anything but appellate
jurisdiction OF such cases as that of Bezou va.
DeMeza and others, and it is neither sverred nor
PRETENDED that our appellate jurisdiction Is In apv
wise put 10 jeopardy by the judge OF the Fourth
District Court, etc. The learned Judge goes on AZ
grestlength, cited many authorities and Concluded:
In the case at bar we are Of opinion that II a
maj Judgment shall ever be rendered against the
REALTORS they will have an adequaute remedy bv
appeals The writ they ask for is not one of right
ana the case does not show legal necessity for
sucn summary remedy. In this view IL Il m.
necessary to consider the other questions in the
For the reasons given II is ordered that the ruIe
taken by the REALTORS be dismissed with costs. -
BY ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HOWE.
No. ls69-The State er rel. Pike, Lapevre 4
brother vs. the Judge of the Fourth District Court.
in application for writ of prohibtion.-A. nm.
VOORHEES,, Hays 4 New and A. Pilot for plsintiff.
". Schmidt for commissioner. facts of this
case are substantially the same a. those in the
case Of State e1 rel. D'Meza and Others va Judoe
OF the Fourth District Court, and as 10 thar case