New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-06-21

[ supreme OOAIB-4nC -AAACAA aA0 SNN0-
COnfiseatfOn Cases.
| United States VS.. 844 lots and ten squares
I of ground, the property of John Slidell, on
! appeals and writ of errOr.-Under the act OF
| july II, 1862 entitled IAN act to suppress
| instruction, to punish treason and rebel
| lion, to seize and confseate the property OF
rebels and for other purposes" the marshal
1 of the United States for the district OF Loui-
| siana, on the fifteenth of August, 1868, seized
the propertv in question in this case as the
| property of John Shdell, and on the fifteenth
4 of September 1868, the district attorney of
| the United States for the same district filed
| a libel or information for the confscation of
1 said property. The libel charges that Sill
dell, subsequently to the passage of the act,
did act as an officer of the army or navy Of
| the rebels in arms against the government
of the United States, or as a member Of
| Congress, or as judge, or as a CABINET Off
Ger. or as q foreign minister, or as a com
missioner, of the so-called confederate
| States of America, or that, while owning
| property in loyal State or Territory, etc,
! he did give aid and comfort to the rebellion.
! Other charges we're made against him of
| the same general character, and 1t was
| claimed that, by reason of the premises,
| the property described in the libel was for
| feited to the United States, and ought to be
| condemned to their use; and prayed pro-
/ cess against the property and the owner
| thereof, and all persons interested or claim
! ing an interest therein, to warn them to APP
/ pear and answer the information. Process
| was accordingly issued and duly published.
Several persons appeared and filed petit
tons of Intervention, setting up title to Ger
| tain portions of the land seized, or liens by
way of mortgage or otherwise upon pOr-
| tions thereof
! John Arrowsmith claimed title to several
squares in New Orleans, as having been
purchased by him many years before.
The Citizens Bank of Louisiana claimed
a mortgage upon a portion OF the property
| to secure stock note for S4lO4, due the
! first of June, 1868; and also a mortgage on
another portion to secure them for advances
| upon letter of credit given to SGdel on
| the third of September 1861, upon Messrs.
! f. AID. Marcuard & Co., of Paris, upon
which he had drawn $4,000, prior to the
thirteenth of May, 1862. The latter mort
| gage was registered May ?, 1862.
+. A. Marcuard, a citizen of France,
! claimed a mortgage lien upon certain pOr-
tons Of the property to secure certain loans
| of money made by him to Slidell in Paris,
| namely, $50, 600 francs on the fourth Of June,
| 1862, payable in one year, which mortgage
was received at New Orleans by Eugene
| Rousseau, agent of Marcuard, July IA, 1862
and recorded on the same day. before the
| appointment of a register by General But
| Ter, and atterward, again recorded on the
| twenty ninth July, 1862, by recorder ap-
| pointed by him, and deposited with a mo-
| tary August 4, 1862; and again recorded,
with the act of deposit, on the ninth of
| August, 1862. On the eleventh of August,
1867, General Butler issued an order for the
confscation Of Slidelrs property, and the
rents were afterWard received by the mill
tary authorities on the property mortgaged.
NicOlson g. Co. claimed lien on certain
property for laying the NicOlson pavement
The State of Louisiana claimed a lien for
| certain taxes due.
| Mrs. Gaines claimed to be the owner of
certain lots specified in her petition.
The Merchants Bank OF New Orleans
claimed certain brick building in which
their banking business had been carried on,
| and an equitable interest in which, etc, by
! virtue of a certain agreement.
| Ortiz Huppenbauer. tenant of two lots,
| claimed to have largely increased their
| value by making permanent improvements,
and desired an equitable allowance therefor.
| In the principal cause of cOnfscatiOn a
| default was taken on the eighteenth of April,
| 1864, and and decree of condemnation rem
! dered on the eighteenth of March, 1865.
Various proceedings were had, and con-
| siderable evidence was taken upon the
| several interventiOns, and DEGREES were
made by the District Court in each, favOra-
| BILE or unfavOrable to the claim presented.
| Among others, decree was made on the
| seventh of July, 1865, dismissing the claim
of the Citizens Bank to mortgage lien for
| 900 francs. or SIS, 900, advanced upon
| their letter of credit given to Slidell in Sep
| TENDER, 1861. Another decree was rem
| dered on the same day dismissing the claim
| of Marcuard to a mortgage lien of 100000
| francs lent to Slideu in Paris. On the fifth
| of MAY, 1866, the court dismissed the claim
| of the Merchants Bank Of New Orleans.
/ oil ithaca daaranc our1aolG
larly taken by the intervenors; and one of
| the questions before this court is whether
| an appeal lies in such cases. A motion has
| been made to dismiss the appeals on the
| ground that the proper remedy for revising
| the judgment or decree fthe District Court
| is a writ of error, and not an appeal.
1t has undoubtedly been decided by the
| Supreme Court in the case of Armstrong;
| foundry Is Wall 776) and other cases, that
| the proceedings for confscatiOn are pro
| ceedings at common law, and not in adj
| miralty or equity, and therefore require a
| Jury for the trial of issues of fact, and a
writ of error to revise the Judgment This
view is corroborated by the recent CAGES of
| Garnett VS.. the United States, McVeigh VS..
| the United States, and Miller VS.. the United
| States, reported in ii Wallace. But inter
ventiOns of third parties, made during the
course of the proceedings, setting up claim
| to, or lien upon, the property, are often in
| the nature of a bill of equity, and require
| an equitable proceeding to ascertain and
/ establish the rights of the parties. They
are especially so when they seek to estab
! fish lien upon the property or any portion
! thereof, and to subject it, or the proceeds
| of it, to the payment OF debt or other
| claim, having priority over the claim of the
/ government, or constituting legal charge
! upon the property when the cause of con
| fscatiOn occurred. / conceive the claims of
| the lntervenOrs in this case who have APP
| pealed, as before stated, to be of this kind.
Hence, in my Judgment, no trial by jury
was requisite in reference to those claims,
and the DEGREES rendered III reference
thereto are subject to appeal rather than to
writ of error. Whether they would come
| up as Outbranches of the record, and be
subject to review upon writ OF error,
| brought to the principal judgment in the
case, it is perhaps unnecessary to decide. l
! hold, therefore, that the appeals taken in
| this case by the intervenOrs above named
/ were properly taken, and should not be dis
missed
The next question is whether they were
well taken. As the district Judge has not
| assigned his reasons for dismissing the
| claims, / am somewhat at loss to know
/ the precise reasons on which his decision
was founded. In the case of the Citizens
| Bank NO. 3647l, l presume the ground
| must have been that the letter OF credit
| was manifestly given to Slidell, to enable
/ him TO accomplish his mission to France in
| the service of the confederate cause. 1t has
| been repeatedly decided at the Circuit, and
| in the case Of Hanauer VS.. DOane, 10 Wall,
| $40, bv the Supreme Court, that contract
| made in furtheTance OF the rebellion or in
| aid of the confederate cause, is void and
! can not receive the aid of the courts. The
r Ill ~ IoNA. - -