New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-01-26
TIll. COURTS.
United states Circuit C0urt.-!ion. +. II.
OureN.


Pacific Railroad Company "a. National
Marine and Fire Insurance Conipanv.-On
.arnishmcnt.
This is u rule taken on a number %: gar
uishrc- stoc kholders of the Insurance COM
pany. IA bankrupt institution in process of
liquidation in one of the State courts.
In answer to the rule an exception is filed
to the jurisdiction of the court, setting forth
that the State court. having had orig
inal cognizance of the case, and appointed
liuuidators to close ont its affairs. this court
could not legally question the authority OF
the proceeding. 1t was shown that nothing
had been collected since the appointment OF
the liQliidatorS. namely. the tenth OF March.
1864.
The court ovcrruicd the exception. on the
ground that the corporation WAS bankrupt.
and the State court had no jurisdiction
whatever. If parties find themselves in-
jured by the process of liquidation in a State
court. il il their duty to force the institution
into bankruptcy. by bring ing it before the
proper tribunal.
The court being asked 20 cit" authorities
in regard to it. jurisdiction in the matter.
said:
Your own statements in regard tn the com
pany are: that it is bankrupt: that these
proceedings are taken in this court. and that
il has no jurisdiction to take possession OF
il. When the bankrupt law became a law
the jurisdiction OF the State court. with re-
gard to insolvent corporations and lndivi-
duals, became pOwerless to act. ion had
better reserve your authorities until the
matter comes up on appeal
The Planters Bank of Tennessee Va. the
Union Bank of Louisiana occupied the at
tcntion of the court during the remainder
of the day. and went over until this morn
ing at eleven o'clock.
seventh District Court.
Judge Co!ens yesterday delivered the
tolowin. opinion. which will be found in
terestiny by our commercial readers
Richard Baker ct ais. owners of steam
ship Sherman, Va. Lehman, GOIdchaux &
Coin proper case, where the presrmI-
ton of seaworthincss is rcbutted by ple;.
and proof (by proof at least sufficient to
overcome presuinptiOnl. l would decide
that the authorities quoted in the first de
cison OF this suit did not apply.
They would not be applicable in favor of
the ships owner, who, upon All accident at
tributable to unseaworthness and causing
an interruption of the voyage. sues to COM
pei the owners of Il cargo to contribute
to the expenses necessary to enable the
vessel to continue her voyage.
The owners warrant the vessel seaworthy
at the outset. and durin. the voyage. and
are liable to shippers and consignees Of
cargo for any loss resulting from Il breach
of that warranty. Therefore the owners of
the ship can not require the cargo to con-
tribute to the expenses necessary to comply
with this warranty. The inconsistency of
such "A pretension is palpabie. Such Il case
must be excepted from the class referred to
in the authorities quoted. Those authori-
ties relate to repairs becoming necessary
from the perils of the sea, or collision, or
some other mishap, not amounting to a
fault directly chargcable upon the owners
of the vessel
But the present case is not one iii which
this doctrine should he applied. The law
presumes the seaworthiness Of the vessel
until the contrary is made 10 appear in
evidence, and on notice given by the
plcadingS.
Now, in this case: l. The petition ex
pressly alleges the seaworthiness of the
vessel. >. The defendants merely plead a
general denial and give no intilnation Of
any intention to contest the fact presumed
by law. ). That fact is expressly apparent
in the protest filed in evidence. 4. The de-
PENDANTS became parties to the adjustment
of average without objection, and remained
silent on the point of scawOrthiness till
after the evidence was closed. ). The re-
pairs became necessary from Il sudden
breaking of machiney, which might, for
aught to the contrary shown, have hans
pened from some cause against which no
human prudence could guard, and, there
fore not included in the warrant.
Under such pleadings and circumstances,
the plaintiffs were not bound to adduce
proof to explain the accident The pre-
sumption of seaworthiness remained unim
paired.
The case of kathman vs.. General Mutual
Insurance Company, II Ann. =. 30,
sllstans these views, and plaintiffs case is
still within the rule OF the authorities
quoted in the first decision rendered i'll this
case.
Judgment for plaintiff as prayed for.
Judge Collens also rendered the following
opinion:
Cronan vs.. Pernet.-Thc facts Of this
case, as set forth i'll the petition, are IA fol-
lows:
Cronan, who is a city contractor, per
property which he alleges was owned by
defendant. His demand for compensation
for the work not being met, he proceeded
to seize the said property, when he was met
by Mr.. COrne, who fled suit in interven-
ton, claiming that the property in question
belonged to him, and that Pernet had no
interest whatever in the same. Judge Col
lens has rendered a written decision, which
we give as follows:
l. The plaintiffs contract with the city
exceeded 500, and was never recorded. 1t
would be forced Interpretation to construe
it as not being enc, but several contracts, a.