New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-07
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

terhouse Company, Judge Dibble mas ue
iiyered the following decision in this case
This is an application for the writ OF man
damus to compel the officers of the corpora
t;o. made defendant, to transfer certain
stock to the name Of relatOr. He AYERS .nat
he is the owner of one hundred shares OF the
stock of said company, representee ny INC
certificates numbered nlnety-seven anu
ninety nine, one for sixty-hve shares anu
one for thirty-five shares; that ne advanced
money TO one Destes who loaned 1t In May,
1869. to one Viosa who pledged the afore-
said stock as security, and subsequently
transferred the same; that notice was gwen
to fine officers of the company OF TINS
nledqe: that demand was made Tor the
transfer of the stock to name OF reiator,
but that the officers OF the corporation re-
fused The stock, he alleges, stands In the
name of J. Viosca, Jr. He further AYERS
that Clark g. Wharton, commercial flrm
Of this city, claim some right against this
stock, and are preventing him nom OBTAIN
ING his transfer; he asks that they be made
parties to this proceeding.
To this demand I. J. Brott, President OF
the corporation aforesaid, responds that the
matters involved are in dispute between re-
lator and the aforesaid Clark 4 Wharton.
and that said company has no interest In
the controversy exceptsthat it be settled.
John Wharton and j. G. Clarke, made
parties as aforesaid, appear and say that by
| the terms of an agreement, dated March IL,
| 1869, they were to have each One-seventeenth
of the stock of the said corporation, and es-
pecially certain preferred stock, assigned to
six certain persons, of whom Niosca was
| one that. notwithstanding his agreement,
Viosca was about to dispose OF his stock
| when they instituted suit and obtained an
| Injunction restraining the company afOre-
| said from transferring the stock: that they
subsequently obtained judgement Ill SAID
- u, r,.f nI,ptl
| them to be owners of one hundred anu
| twenty shares of stock standing in the name
| of said Viosca, and requiring the sad COM
| pany to deliver same to them
The appearers then proceed to show
| wherein the alleged transfer OF the stock
| from Viosca to this relatOr is defective, and
| conclude by praying that the mandamus be
| refused and that they be decreed to be the
owners Of the stock, and that the same be
| delivered to them in accordance with the
| Judgment of the Sixth District Court
All parties to these proceedings seem to
| be willing that the issue between relatOr
and Clarke g. Wharton should be deter
mined. Nevertheless l am unwilling TO
make so bad a precedent.
The writ of mandamus is high judicial
| writ issuing in the name of the State, IN a
| summary manner, to compel public officers,
| officers of corporations, or individuals, to
perform some specific act belonging to the
| place or station occupied by such person or
officer. As l have before said, the writ
ought never to be awarded to settle a
private dispute between two citizens.
| was never intended to 90 to an officer or
person who is ,ciHing to do the thing re-
quired.
1t is not duty belonging to the place OF
president and secretary Of the company
made defendant herein, to transfer stock
upon the books of said company pending n
DISPUTE as to the ownership of the same;
therefore the writ Of mandamus can not go
to compel them to make such a transfer
pending such dispute. -,
1t is nothing to the point to say that all
of the parties in interest are before the
court. The ownership of property can not
be determine ed in this summary manner.
| The correctness of this view is shown
uDon noticing other facts in this case. There
are judgments in the Sixth District Court IN
favor Of Wharton g. Clarke. made parties
herein. for this identical stock. In those
cases there are perpetual injunctions against
the Crescent City Live Stock Landing and
Slaughterhouse Company, restraining It's
officers from transferring its stock to any
one but said Clarke s. Wharton. Should
| this mandamus issue the order would run
counter with those injunctions.
The relator has his remedy by nterven-
ton by way of their opposition to the execu
ton of the Judgment of the Sixth District
Court
The officers of the corporation are bound
to transfer the stock to any vendees upon
presentation of the certificates, unless they
have notice OF adverse claims upon the stoch
| as in this case.
The other officers having Judgment III
their favor have no relief to ask. Upon
| their Judgment they may attach the Ger
titicatc in the hands of the relatOr herein
and in that way test their claim thereto as
against the relator. But the controversy
can not be determined by the writ OF man
damus.
1t is therefore ordered that the mandamu'
{ be refused at the REALTORS cost.
Louisiana State Lottery Company vs.
Alabama Mutual Aid Association, ct al
Rule for contempt. j. T. d. Lefevre, one
of the defendants in this case, was brought
before Judge Dibble yesterday on rule t.
show cause why he should not be punished
for contempt for having sold Havana lottery
+ tickets in violation of the injunction heren
issued and directed to him. Messrs. Cas-
tellanos and Belden appeared for Mr.
5 Lefevre and j. p. Horror and w. f. W hlta
ker for the Louisiana Lottery. The court
after hearing evidence, condemned Mr.: LIE
, feyre TO nav fine of one hundred dollars
or 90 to Jail for ten days. This IS the sec
| ond time the defendant in the rule has peel
| fined for contempt i'll this case, LOT disoDe
dience of the INJUNCTION.
. State ex rel. r. H. Isabelle VS.. the New
Board of School Directors.-This case
which is a mandamus to compel the defend
ants to appoint Ward Directors to the pun
= lie schools, with view to allowing chlldrel
o | of all colors to attend all the public schools
|. came up yesterday.
Mr.. Atocha for defendants, said since
the order of the court had been served IN
4 board had held no regular meeting, AM
l., ! asked that the mandamus be continued owe
: until some time next week, so that quo
rum might gotten together and some actlo
It taken bv the board, either for or against
l. Mr.. John b. Howard, counsel for relat0l
i | Oppose1 the continuance, and stated that
the meeting of the board, upon Saturda
y night last, the president, he was INFORMED
|, had purposely stayed away, so as to preEeII
It "a quorum If he stayed away once he mlSi
STAY away again. He alleged that the OF
y iect of the relator was to secure Tor I'll
IS children of the colored people equal adva1
II tages in their school houses, with the PRIV
o leSes enioyed by the whites i'll their schoo
" houses.
Mr.. Atocha denied that the president I
the board staid away from the meeting u
% Saturday night.
G. The court at last concluded to contlnr
s the case over until Monday next, but AIDE
- that it could not see the object OF the pr
- posed examination of so many witnesses
Ia Mr.. Howard replied that he had SUI
x moned no one whose testimoney was not IL
portant and his purpose was to eXanll
each and every one closely and thorough
~ Judge Dibble continuing, SAID that |
- did not grasp the idea OF counsel for relat
t. as to the proposed manner OF c0nductll
n the case.
II Mr.. Howard replied that if the court d
o sired it, he would divulge his plan OF oPel,
90 hi n