New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-26
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF new
ORLE ms.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF REV.
ORLE ANS.
We are permitted to publish extracts
from letter recently received by Colone
Charles Case, Receiver, from his solicitors
in Liverpool, and his reply thereto, which
will be interesting to the many creditors O.
this bank residing in this city:
| No. IL CASTLE STREET, +,
| Liver pool. June 3, 1870.
DEAR S1R-Thomson VS.. Simpson & Co.
We are sorry to say that we are no neare.
the hearing of this appeal. 1t must, accord
ing to the statute, be heard by the full
, court; that is to say, by two Of the Lords
Justices of Appeal; and the Lord Chancel-
lor has hitherto been so much engaged in
| the House of Lords that he very seldom
sits as a Judge of Appeal and the govern.
| ment still delays appointing another Lord
Justice in his place, SO that the appeal bust.
ness Of the Lords Justices Court is all but
at a standstill.
First National Bank, New Orleans VS..
Simpson & Co.-This case is now removed
to the Master of the Rolls Court, and we
have had one hearing before his Chief Clerk,
who is to go through the papers, and has
made an appointment to go into the matter
AGAIN Oh Inc lWeuty -5ctCutA lHStout. uC
Chief Clerks Chambers are so full that bust
ness is much delayed. -
We assure you that we have been using
our best endeavors to push these suits on
at more rapid rate, and have no doubt
that when we can once get fairly before the
present Chief Clerk, he will make his re-
port with reasonable promptitude. 1t does
not very much matter what his report may
be, as either party will go to the Judge if the
report is against them.
We regret not to be able to report any
further progress in these long pending mat
tiers. We are, dear sir,
HARVEY JEV0Ns & RYLEY.
Charles Case. ESQ.,, Receiver. etc.
To this letter Colonel Case replied as fol-
lows:
RECEIVERS OFFICE,
First National Bank of New Orleans.
New Orleans, Louisiana, June q, 1870
Messrs. Harvey Jsvons Ryey. Liverpool:
GENTLEMEN-Your favor of the third in
slant is this day to hand. Of course, l re-
greet the additional delay, but have full con-
fdence that it was and is unavoidable.
Since writing you last, have also re-
ceiyed the copy you sent me of the points
made in argument on behalf Of the First
National Bank in the case of Thomson VS..
Simpson.
think the points we'll taken and we'll
argued. After more mature reflection, l am
only stronger in my conviction that the deci.
sion of the Vice Chancellor in that case was
wrong, and l find that many members of
the profession, residing here, of good stand
nag as solicitors and councillors, concur
with me.
Whenever the case is again argued, it
strikes me that the ideas suggested by me
IN former letter might with advantage be
pressed more in detail than they were.
they bear upon both questions raised, and
show Il think) not only that there was no
specific appropriations of the funds of, or
,stoppel against, this bank, but that le-
rally, there could have been neither the one
Tor the other. In short they illustrate that
living to the language of Forbes (cross-ex-
animation considered, the construction
most favorable to the plaintiff, which it will |
reasonably bear, the rights of plaintiff were |
hose of an ordinary holder and payee of a |
loH-accepted bill, drawn by a corporation,
whose powers were clearly defined by the |
harter, and not other or different. And |
that is true of Thomson is equally so as to |
be other holders of bills, who seek payment |
q full from the funds in the Liverpool |
'ank.
Suppose Forbes did say to the purchasers |
'hen he sold these bills, 1--WE have the funds |
here now, as our accounts current show,
AluCiCut W pay CICSC 4uIt w dS uOt
lateriaI. The material question, if any, to
Q propounded and answered was, 'Will
mere be funds there sixty days hence, or
hen these bills mature? p As to this, what
Mr.. Forbes did say in effect, 1.-THE funds
ow in the Liverpool bank shall be there
hen these bills fall due to cover them; we
ltend to keep them there for that purpose"
That did this amount to but an assurance,
= word of mouth, that the drawer should
ave money to take up these bills at ma
lrity?"
I again ask, Does not the law say this
UGH for every drawer of time bill even
he is silent when he sells? Yet does
lis implied representation give the payee
~ rights as against the funds in the hands
the drawee in the absence of an accep-
nee? A is banker dealing in foreign ex-
lange; B goes to him and says Il want
bill at sixty days sight on Liverpool for
,000." Every well" says A, "my rates are
ne per cent" agreed" says B; ''draw
e bill to my order" A draws the bill, say.
g not another word. B counts out the
oney, face and exchange, takes his bill, and
ayes. Now, though A has all the while
zen silent, the law, speaking for him, has
id to B, s'Sir, you may depend upon it, the
nds to take up that bill shall be in the
.nds of the drawee when it natures" II
precisely upon this implied language of
e law that every first purchaser of bill
lies. Does it amount to an appropriation
funds on hand? Does it estop the drawer
ON drawing out every dollar he may have
the drawee's hands before the bill ma
res? Surely, as to these points the
liberties do not have room for a doubt.
But in the case Of the First National
ank even this implied representation
ould have been limited, as Were any en-
esS representations, by the provisions Of
e law which was its charter.
Whatever the rights of Thomson and these
her bill-hoders are, they are rights e.
ntrdctet, binding only the parties to the
ntract. Whatever contract was made
IS executed here, between parties here
ring and domiciled. The Liverpool Bank
light have become party to the contract
accepting, but there was no acceptance.
he parties contracting knew the law, and
lew that it was utterly out of and beyond
e power of the First National Bank to
axe any contract, which, in the event of
J insolvency before the maturity OF
oh contract, should have the ef
ct to give the other party to it as a
editor, precedence and priority over all
liberties in this country are clear and
lrmonious. Whether this bank gave its
omissory note on time, or drew time bill,
conditional promise in the one case, and
) absolute one in the other, were subject
this Limitation which the law imposed as
rtainly as though it had been written on
q face of the note or bill. "If this bank
lis before this paper natures, the owner
III be entitled to his share pro rata with
her creditors, and no more" This was
hat the law said to the purchasers of these
lis when they bought them, as plainly as
ordinarily says to a purchaser. that funds I
lall be on hand at maturity. Knowing ,
lis legal limitation, (and they may hot
cad ignorance thereby, how can they in