The New York herald., 1873-11-16
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, Nov. IS, 1879.
No. 92 Lasere vs. Robertson ct a.-Error to the
Supreme Court OF Louisiana.-Ths was an action
brought by Lasere against different parties to set
aside certain Judgments and the proceedings
under them, by which they had been given posses
sion OF his property in New Orleans. The facts, as
stared by Lasere are, that he was resident OF
New Orleans and Clerk OF the Supreme Court Of the
State for that district and had been such years
before the war and at the time OF the capture OF
New Orleans by the federal arms that, although
there was no charge OF any sort against him, and
although he had not been in the military service,
he was compelled 10 leave New Orleans and 20
beyond the lines by the Provos' Marshal OF the De-
partment, under orders OF Generals Butler ard
Banks, and dared not return that while
were taken against him without notice, and
his property was condscated by the provisional
courts OF that district. The Court below sustained
the proceedings, and the Judgme ntS-there were
originally Two cases-were for those in possession
OF his property. The writ OF error maintains tnat
the order OF banishment, 1t is called, excused
the non-appeaIance OF Lasere and interposes the
statute OF limitations between him and the process
OF the Courts OF New Orleans; that the proceed
ings are also void, because the curator al hoe, ap
pointed by the Court, did not perform his duty,
and could not. by notifying Lasere OF tue proceed
ings and inviting him TO defend them. IL Is said
that as the plaintiff could not appear and defend
the case, because forcibly sent beyond the lines
into the enemy's country the proceedings against
him were null because the writ OF summons was
nugatory and the curator was under a disability
TO perform the duties OF his office. j. A. Campbell,
ex-Justice OF this Court for plaintin, deinoants
not appearing.
No. "a. Wilson, assignee, &c. vs.. City Bank OF
St. Paul.-Certifcate of division from the Circuit
Court for Minnesota-In this case Vanderhof
Bros, a ST. Paul firm, owning the bank, suffered
their entire stock OF goods to be seized on execu-
ton on judgment by default obtained against
them by the bank. and thus. as alleged, .fraudu-
enty preferred the bank their other cred
itors, against the provisions OF the Bankrupt act,
and the assignee seeks to have the proceeds OF the
sale on execution applied toward the payment of
all the creditors. There being division below on
the question of bankruptcy involved, 1t is certified
70 this Court Tor answer and is contended by the
assignee that the failure OF the firm TO pay, the
commencement OF the suit and subsequent pro-
ceedings were sufficient TO give the bank notice OF
the bankruptcy and insolvency Of the hrm, and that
by their not advising other creditors OF the com
mencement OF the suit 1t Is evident there was an
intention to frauduiently prefer the bank by the
firm: and that under such circumstances the
bank is not in a position to claim the fund, and
should not receive 1t. The bank maintains that
mere honest inaction in a poor man, when his
creditor seeks by law 10 collect debt is not III
Itself act of bankruptcy, and that there Is
nothing more than this shown IN the case to es-
tablish fraudulent intent. The intent II Is urged,
is as much a fact to be proven as the transfer or
the suffering procuring the property to be
TAKEN and that If the intent Is TO be inferred rom
the transfer, then the qualifying words of the act,
with intent to give preference are meaning
less f, G.. Rogers, for plaintiff: Henry Oiiien, for
defendant.