New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-14


In answer to {, rule nisi the Treasurer an
swercd That at the time the warrant was
furnished for payment there were 10 funds
in the treasury wherewith to pay IT,, That
before the warrant was presented re was
instructed BY INC State Auditor not to pay
ito as it had been issued through error upon
counterfeit cnapOns OF bonds ct the State
of Louisiana, and had no legal force.
That he can only pay out moacy upon the
order of the l.riitor. and. as in this case,
when his authority to pay is revoked, he is
without power legally to perform the act.
The vuls esas made absolute, and the
Trea~lrev 0r;:crcd to pay to the REALTORS the
amount of ne Warrants and that he pay
costs of :hs. proceedings
An .ppeas from this Judgment WAS taken
on the part If the State. It Is esta abisheA
clearly thae through the fraud and knavery
of Isaacs .Iacticed upon the Auditor, be.
through errer, issued. the warrants upon
State bond interest coupons, proved to be
spurious .1I forged Instruments
The Sclarors, who are bankers and dealers
In money. purchased the warrant from
Is:iacse a2,d contend that ~ shee acquired
ownership OF the warrant IN good faith. and
for IA valuable consideration. the state is
bound ~ pay from the amount called for by
the waTranto whatever nEty have been the
circumstances under which it was issued.
They aim to assume the position of inno
cent third holders, and invoke the princio
pies of the commercial law TO protect theno
1iey seem. however, to rely mainly on the
doctrine Of e-toDp.io
They in sist that tAe warrant navfn. Been
issued by the properly authorized officer OF
the State, and beng an order by the State.
through It's proper agent. for the payment
of IA sam of money to the pavee or to his
ordere the State thereby acknowledged its
obligation to pay tho specified sum, and
having put the instrument INTO circulation
As . negotiable one. the State " estopped as
~ the REALTORS. holders III good faith for a
valuable consideration, from setting up
error Aal .yaud to JitiatS and Gepudiate the
act.
W. .rs Srfhrced 20 various authorities ss
sustaining these positions.
w. see no sutficien; reasons for ascribinS
% 'he instrument il question the character
o. commercial paper under the mercantile
law. True. It is payable 20 IsaacS. or OF
der, hut this single feature of a negotiable
instrument docs not, We apprchend, cluthe
the third holders Of shis warrant with AL
.hp spe.ia! rights snd immunities which. on
grounds of l,olit ye and in the interest OF
commerce. they would be entitled to under
the commercial :aw as bona tidc holders of
!. pr"mssovv n"te OK 80 bill of exchange
The warrant simply authorizes IT,. Tyeaso
for certain coupons OF Interest presented by
aim for payment. 1t i-not of tAe nature OF
bill ~ credit II was not designed to clI"
culatc Az a commercial securitvo
II was obtained 6v imposition ana fraud
W . '!'iii'ii'' '''' - '"'-:' 'u
peiP'''''t'oh %. ~ .hL'i.'1, ciii'l.' l.. "">
@ircA III :. Ia ~. .a,
iu.'''t 'l:o'. !'"''A ~ 80 ''''' "'''''
"u, '"Nsi'''''l'""'
way 'i' !. ~, '' " I' - -, -,
III, Nv ,,I. ,ai,, :. h".,,.. nr,,;,., hn,
o., ,I .,, .,,...n,,n,t hnIa.r
80 - :. ~. . .,
t'uia i,aae" 5''' ~ IKE an' '"t'r ~ 'rnus.
'c',."- ,,t,I;' ''..1nn W '." v','-a, v"
~ 'At Va .;'.. 90
~ ~ IA '' ~ ~ :, y . :.
4, ~ t;'i .,
,i'' .S''.' S ''n, wac a .i' ,'I';a'. ~
"H ''''',' a.. 't''i',' ~ VA Nv, Nv. s"J. Va
,'l'I''. :, ~ I,Ii. "a $500. r.,l' -yt IT,
.o''.''' ., 81 a., 49,, pI'.;'s- 90.
'n,t '"sr '',c 1914 '"s .'i,;.,, :,
count was 1'''.T u.''. '''!n,s ny ~ ~
WI, '!'F- ." 'AS'' '''0 '''A '
'iSi' '"
;,, .h.. ,,nun, ..,r II. h,pd. va. vcrr ius,Iv
..7,n,,.I frnm .,t,;n, nm il. van, III ,;,,ht
y. I'm. :h.. hond,. or :he commons, wien
.,llc,! mon >. max ,hrm. But what did the
St,,,,t I n,,;.;',,, ,...nir,. tn- .h,. ,y,rr.,n,
;.s,,nj ,n J.,,..' VA. II IN. sunnosrI
.''.i;. ~ a. Ia :. ..n....sI ~ h,v,. ,,n il,
,,.,,i; 'l,h. ~, ..n,,,,,nI. r.r,,;nIv,,,
''w'"
ln' H,alN WIS ho' nrhNh'c" one cent w
issuing th' Warrant. lh're - tHen no anal
""E between 'A" wv" chSts' Is IN" S,ats
power.essto protect !fse1 from so shameless
fraud HecanNe through lhpo-itloh ste
'"sSfIlllV pract"ed upon the Auultore he
stated mar IN" S'a'e owed ihe amount "X,
pressed oF inc "aflahts small II De estopPeu
from declaring ana proving The lraiid. ana
from alleging tina. o9 That a'sount II does
not owe the sum rlai!neuf
On the othtS lahns thr alleged "qhltdoie
claims "i 'he Sel"t"rs 40 not appear on exc
animation I" be AS strong AS represented. II
Is part OF the History OF the period during
which they acquired tins warrant. and 1t
Was matter OF pupilc notorie'v (hat eStrh-
SlTt frauds ilau been committed upon tle
fiscal department OF the state government,
and that the predecessor OF tho present M
cumbcnt o1 the auditors office was coInpl-
Gated with those frauds. A state OF things
existed winch was well calculated orehdrr
"e''''S III SECURITIES VI 'h'' A.'''' r''"'''''
1t was a matter OF no surprise during TINS
state OF uncertainty ana doubt, when II was
aScertalncd that Large HlantltIcs OF spurious
coupons had been manufactured, AMI that
the fraudulent act by which tue warrant
was obtained had been accomplished.
The testimony OF Levy, broker or the
city. iS S'=niilcalit III regard 10 the suspicion
that arose III MS NINA win respect TO this
warrant While IT was III tAe hanos Oh
isaarS. Levy undertook to sell the warrant
tor lsaacs nut afterwards decIlhen havlnS
anything 10 90 with II, because aS ne
states. the manner OF inc man. anu MS
anxiety TO sell the warrant n'io" me mar
"A