New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-10-20
NEW ORLEANS THURSDAY OCTOBER 90
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court,


Of Liquidators of the Floating Debt.-ln
this case relator claims, as transteree OF
Jacob Hawkins, reporter of the Supreme
Court, the sum Of S625, the amount OF his
quarterly salary for the quarter ending
March 81, 1870, as evidenced by a warrant
issued on the first of April last. Mr..
Semmes attorney for relator, argued yes
terday morning that the salary became due
on the thirty-tirst of March, and to all in
tents and purposes became due at that
time, notwithstanding the warrant was not
issued until the first of April.
Attorney General Simeon Beldcn, who ap-
pearcd for the defendant and tor the State
as intervenor, argued that as matter of
public policy the claim should not be re-
garded as part OF the floating debt, as it
would involve the payment to Judges and
District Attorneys throughout the State,
amounting to over $780, ZOO, payable every
three months, which would require more
ready money than there is in the treasury.
The Attorney General also filed a written
answer, substantially as follows The claim
is no part of the floating debt, and is not en-
titled to payment out of the funds arising
under the provisions of said act. and known
as the floating debt liquidation fund.
The point raised was, are Auditors war
rants drawn upon or after April J, iS'0, tor
for time prior to the first of April, entitled
der the act of 1870, and especially the pro
vision of the second section, viz: THAT this
act shall apply onl to debts contracted and
adjusted in due and legal form prior TO
April !, lS70.'
Tne action in this ease was based upCn
the warrants, amounting to S625, Drawn i'll
favor Of the reporter of the Supreme Court,
and held by the plaintiff by purchase.
Mr.. Scmmes cOntended that the warrants
md Of y,,a oh pr.4r
were part and parcel of the floating debt,
while the Attorney General took a position
directly opposite, and denied that they con-
stituted part of the floating debt, or We're
provided for by the issue and sale of bonds
or exchange of the same. under act OF
March 10, 1870. Mr.. Semmes contended
also that the floating debt arrangement
made it optional with the creditor of the
State whether he should apply for payment
from said fund or wait until the State was
regularly in funds. He took the position
also that the salary in question was due
upon the thirty first of March at twelve
o'clock d.. and before the Grst of April.
His client was in office and was not obliged
TO wait until after midnight upon the thirty
first of March before demanding his pay.
He was entitled to it on the thirty
first of March. The Attorney Generals
position in this matter. which in
thousand dollars, is as we understand it: !.
That the act in question never contemplated
any such payment, because under that con
sJruction there would he an insufficient
amount to meet its requirements. :. That
the meaning of the term Floating debt"
strictly applies to that character of debt for
which there has been no practical provision
for payment. 3. That in order 10 constitute
this particular claim floating debt it must
hay in f., hay All
iusted in legal form before the first of April.
Judge Dibble reserved his opinion, and
adjourned his court over until Monday next.
the twcnty-tourth instant. Whatever way
this case NAV he decided by the Judge it
will. beyond peradvcnture. be taken to the
Supreme Court. as it involves 80 large an
amount.
The SchOO! Of Medicine in Court,
New Orleans School OF Medicine vs.
Samuel Chopin ct al.-In the matter of the
contest for the possession and right of prop
erty in the building known as the New Or
leans School of Medicine. counsel for de-
PENDANTS have filed the following exceptions
and answer: c. c. Beard, ID. Warren Brick
ell and &. +. Fenner, by their undersigned
counsel. and except to the capacity of the
alleged plaintiff to institute this suit. and
authority Of Samuel Logan as Dean of the
Faculty of the alleged corporation. to
represent the alleged plaintiff or employ
counsel for that purpose, and to any and
every act of the alleged plaintiff, on the
ground that the alleged corporation ceased
to exist and by the death or resignation of
its corporators, lost its faculty of action,
long prior the institution of this suit, and
to the alleged tender: SO that at no time
since the year 1866 was the said alleged cor
poration capable of speaking, acting or
contracting, or authorizing any one to
speak, ack or contract for it. In case this
exception is overrllled these respondents,
without waving the same. deny all and sin
eular the allegations in this petition con
tanned, except the fact that the property de-
scribed in the petition was purchased by
them on the twenty-eighth day of June,
1870, from the Merchants Mutual Insurance
Company, for the price and sum of $4,000
cash. which they have paid, and that they
are the owners thereof jointly, etc.