New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-14
THE COURTS.


United States Circuit Court
The following suits were entered yester
day: Charles Case, receiver of the First
National Bank, against the following par
ties: A. BohDe, Z. M. Boland, E. III. Chad.
wicke, w. K. Crane, James Graham, Thorn
az Janney & Co, E. F. Lavillebeuvre, J,
MCWlhams, l.. Rose, j. s. Walton, j. s.
Whitaker, Robert Watson. A. BOnneval,
III. A. HORNE, tutor of minor heirs of j. H.
zones, Mrs. s. II. Flanders and b. f. Elan
ders, her husband Miles Taylor, E. Martin
g. Co, Mrs. M. G. Mansfield and A. Mans,
field, her husband.
The suits against the above parties by
the receiver represents that the First Ma
ti0nal Bank, which suspended payment on
the thirteenth of May, 1867, and failed to
redeem its circulating notes on the four
teenth, when the receiver was appointed,
and that the credits of the institution are
insufficient to pay its liabilities. The Con
trOHer of the Currency having ascertained
and decided that in order TO paw the debts
OF the bank, it is necessary to enforce the
individual liability Of the stockholders
(see section twelve, act approved June 3,
1861, the receiver was directed to enforce
this liability against every stakeholder to
the full amount of the par value of the
shares of stock held by him at the time of
the failure of the bank. The total amount
of shares were 5000.
Y. j. Dejan VS.. James f. Casey Col
lector.-This case was tried yesterday, and
resulted in nonsuit, Judgment being en-
tered up accordingly, The case was a de-
Inand against the collector in the Seventh
District Court for two hundred and six
boxes of wine, sold Tor having been ware
housed over three years, contrary, the
plaintiff set up, to the law in such cases.
The case was brought up by certiOrdri to
the present court, and the result was as de-
fined.
The following suits were entered against
the parties named for duties on merchan-
disc deposited in bonded warehouses:
United States VS.. John w. Norris & Co,
which firm stored in No. g, Glass B, two
hundred and sixty-five barrels of whisky,
on which S26,S25 internal revenue tax was
due, and failed to pay the tax on one hun
,dred and forty-One barrels.
United States VS.. Alfred III, Isaacson ct
als.-The defendants deposited in the same
warehouse fifty barrels of whisky, signed
the usual bond for the penalty of S74lO,
and failed to pay the duties.
United States District Court.
The assignees accounts in the bankruptcy |
matter of j. III. Erwin were approved, and |
he discharged from all liability.
Fourth District Court.
Heirs of John Slidell vs. F. Huppen- |
bauer.--In the following Judge Theard has |
decided very important question, arising /
under the act Of July IL, 1862 and the /
iOint resolution of Congress explanatory /
thereof: This is a petitOry action brought |
by the plaintiffs to recover certain real
estate belonging to them as the heirs of
John Slidel. The defendant denies their
ownership, and pleads that he has pur-
chased the said property at the United
States marshaFs sale thereof, made on the
twenty-third of May, 1865, by order of the
United States District Court, IN this city,
under q naarpa paudnrnd in Eahruoru nd /
signed in March OF the same year.
The suit is based on the assumption that
life estate only could be cOnfscated I'M
der the joint resolution passed by
Congress statutes at Large 1862, p. 627l
IN explanation of the act of Congress OF
July H. 1862
And the defense rests on the distinction
which the defendant makes between rebels
property and enemies property. In other
words, he contends that the property of
John Slidell was eOnfiscated and sold as
enemies property, and that therefore it was
not limited to a mere life estate
The defense appears to me untenable
The Supreme Court OF the United States.
in the case of Bigelow VS.. Forrest, has very
correctly decided, in my humble Judgment.
that the act Of July, 1862, to suppress insur-
reotiOn, to punish treason and rebellion, to
seize and confscate the property of rebels,
and for other purposes, and the joint reso-
lAbADu VI buc bAluD uttbDg "a pAetuoLVAg VI II, ]
are to be construed together.
Under the two thus construed, all that
could be sold by virtue OF decree of con-
domination and order Of sale under the act,
was right to the property seized, termi-
mating with the life of the person for whose
Offense it was seized.
The question is not whether Congress
could have treated the citizens of the South
,ern States as enemies of war, and what
might have been done in the way of eontis-
eating their property, as enemies property;
but what Congress did actually mean by
the act, and the resolution explanatory
thereof, of the seventeenth July, 1862
1t would be absurd to contend that I'M
der the war power, Congress had not the
right to order the seizure and sale of the
fee simple of all enemies real estate. The
act Of 1862 shows on its face that it was to
suppress the rebellion and cOntiscate rebels
property. The citizens of the Southern
States were treated as rebels and not as
enemies of war, except as to their lives.
Although the rebellion has been crushed
more than seven years ago they are still
treated as rebels by the privation OF their
political rights.
The distinction which the defendant seeks
to Law down, although existing in theory,
does not exist in fact. A rebel may at the
same time be an enemy and be dealt with
AZ such in time Of war. But the govern
ment has not made that distinction On
the contrary, the joint resolution, explana-
tory of the act Of Congress, declares that
not only punishment, but all proceedings
Hereunder, shall not be so construed as to
work forfeiture of the real estate of the
offender beyond his natural life. II
The Supreme Court of the United States
has construed the language of this resolu-
ton as controlling the meaning Of the act
and limiting its operation to. the life Of the
eaendeF. This Interpretation is in strict
sa IN