New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-04-10
THE COURTS.
Eighth Distr1et Court - Jackson Kah.
road Ronds again Ia Court.


road Honds again In Court.
n. McComb vs. Jackson Railroad Com
Yesterday evening the plaintiff, by
his attorneys, Messrs. Hays & New, filed
petition III this court, setting forth that he
had become the purchaser ei 81, $50 shares
of stock, lately owned by the State OF Lou
isiana in the New Orleans, Jackson and
Great Northern Railway Company. THESE
shares were adjudicated to him st the
Immediately after he had become the
purchaser of these shares or bonds:
Mr.. NcComb proceeded to the railroad
office, where he demanded OF General
Beauregard, president of the company, and
Mr.. Charles, its secretary. that the sale OF
these shares should be noted on the com,
Pany's transfer book. This was refused, and
thereupon suit was brought, asking d writ OF
mandamus, commanding defendants to
make the transfer, and ordering the direct
ors of the company to allow HcComo to
vote the stock SO purchased by him at any
and all elections for officers of said COM
pany, etc. The writ was issued.
The Jnchscn Ra,l-ead Bonds.
II. s. McComb vs. the Jackson Railroad
Company; City of New Orleans Interyenor.-
Yesterday came up the application OF plain.
tiff to bond the certificates for the 80, COO
ShdFts VI sloCk, scHucoteEou Oy tuO SasJ va
New Orleans.
Mr.. Beckwith, for intervenor, contended
| that certificate Of stock is not property,
and only voucher of the fact that she city
owns, or owned, SO much, stock. There is
| no property in it, aud it does not come with
| in the rule relative to bonding property.
Mr. Beckwith contended that, should the
| bonding of the certificates, amounting 'in
| nominal value to 81 0c0, 900, be admitted, a
bond of 5000, 600 would be required.
| After hearing argument. Judge Dibble
ordered that McComb be allowed to bond
the certificates, upon giving security in the
sum of $500, 600.
In the. matter Of f'the application for a
mandamus, scommanding the company to
transfer the city's stock On its transfer
| books, the argument was postponed until
| Tuesday next. the twelfth Instant.
| Eixta Disttiet Court.
Judge Cooley yesterday delivered the fol-
| lowing opinion:
Henry N Soria vs. Olmstead & Ricky.-
The only contest in this suit seems to be in
relation to Henry BuShanan, who is charg-
ed with having been partner in the firm OF
Olmstead u Ricky, and Judgment is asked
against him as we'll as the others. The fact
is, that the partnership has not been proven
at all. No partnership actually was estab-
lshed by the evidence, consequently the
plaintiff relies upon the rule in his favor.
| which would make defendant liable, though
not partner on account of his acts and de-
clarations to the public, which Induced him
to believe defendant was a partner.
1t seems to me the equity Of the rule is
| entirely wanting in this case. By the testl.
mony of Mr.. Soria himself, the plaintiff in
this case, it is shown that he knew nothing
at all about Buchanan; at the time he cred
tied the firm Of Olmstead 4 Ricky he did
| not know there WAS such q man in exis-
tence or Euch man pretending to be a
partner in the firm, consequently the credit
| he gave the firm was not predicated in the
presumed partnership OF Buchanan.
The fact that Buchanan may have held
| himself out, and induced others to believe
| that he was partner in that firm, estab-
fishes no equity in favor of Soria, unless il
| is shown these facts camS to his knowledge,
and that he gave credit to the firm Of Olm-
stead d Ricky, on the supposltion that he
| Buchanan-was a member of the firm. So
r,a'has diselaimed any such knowledge at
the time he entered into business relations
with the firm Of Olmstead & Rickv.
The testimony shows that he di5coyered
these things long time afterward. There
must be judgment in favor OF Soria, against
the other parties, but not against Henry
] Buchanan.
Given Campbell. attorney for plaintiff and
| J, II. Cooney for ortieiendant.