New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-12-12

Assault ana battery-Isaac Bohm, Nancy
johnson, Henry and Francis Jordon, Muir
ray Parker d. Ratti, Bill Williams.
Assault with intent to Henry
Jones. -
Horse stealing-Manuel Polico ~
ON TRIAL. e..
State VS.. William John McCall, Dan Carr
alias Buffer, and William Corners Will
fully setting fire to dwelling house. etc
Panel exhausted, and 100 talesmen ordered
tor tomorrow
Second District Court.
The succession OF Mrs. Margaret McVicar
has been opened.
Fourth District Court.
Daniel Edwards Vs. Emile Tanneret.-Ex.
ceptiOn maintained.
Fifth District Courr-Important Decision
by Judge Csliom-The Act of Incor.
poration of a Banking Institution Must
Conform Strictly 20 the Provisions Of
the Free Banking Acf-Any Substantial
Omission strikes the Act with Nullity.
Workingmen's Association Accommoda.
ton Bank vs.. George T. Converse ct al
Suit on defendants bond of $4,000. signed
by Arthur. Poincy. $4,000; E. X. Bryant,
$4,000; j. Levy. 5000: w. P. Converse,
$500; T. M. Converse, $4,000, August /,
1872, to secure his faithful performance OF
the duties Of ok-keeper, etc. Petitioners
allege incorporation under the banking act
OF 1870; that defendant was clerk, etc., and
between July and September q failed to
account for Sill 1873 IS, and in consequence
the bond sued On IL forfeited and the sure
ties become responsible.
The defendants except: l. There is no
such corporation; 2. No corporate existence
August l, 1879, during that year nor since,
IN anQhIQ IL m ko valid fro bo
act OF incorporation does not give tie domi-
Gle, and that article twenty-0ne OF the act
before the notary is not in the act as pub
lished; 4. The act was never published
in tae official journal. ARTICLE TWEEN
ty.one. The stockholders shall not be
responsible for loss or damages in
Cured by said association beyond
the amount of capital stock held or owned
by him or her respectively publiahed as
this discrepancy would not be fatal r. 8.
6S6 and $50. The object Of the incorpora-
tors according to articles one and two, was
to establish q bank, and the act should have
been drawn in strict compliance with the
banking act. Revised Statutes, section 277,
provides that such corporations may exist
for twenty five years, which is the limit in
the act, and have corporate seal, which
the act does not mention. Section 278 re-
quires a notarial act to be published in the
Otfic ial journal, and section 27S that it shall
OF shares of the stockholders. The act does
not comply with these conditions. The as
ISOLATION was never legalized under the law
but is a mere corporation. The existence
of banks must be st,'icti juris. At common
Law the right of banking belongs to every
one. This right has been restricted by ma
tional and State constitutions and legisla-
tive enactments. The formation of banks
has become part of the sove-
authorize those legally proposing to organ
ize bank to dispense with any of the legal
1t is objected that the defend
ant can not set up the illegality of the ex-
istence OF the association, as he has con-
tracted with it. Angel & Ames' Corp. 49,.
This case does not apply. In United States
VS.. Amedy, IL Wheaton, 392, the conrt held
it was sufficient to show the existence of
the insurance corporation without proving
it's legal existence. The policy and attested
copies of the act of Incorporation were Of
fered in evidences. There is nothing of the
kind in the present case. That was a crimi-
nal case, and not one brought by the cor
poration to enforce its rights. In the case
ut bar, the corporation is called upon to es-
tabhsh its legal existence. 1t could be no
party to criminal case. In Steam Naviga-
ton Company We. Weed, Il Barbour, 379,
Parker, j., said a party who had had
the benefit OF a contract could not question
its validity. The contract was not an act
of banking 1t was not question of .
violation of a statute, but whether the
corporation had power to contract, not OF
illegality, but of authority. There was
proof of the existence of the corporation in
that case. The case Of the Trustees of Ali
Saints Church VS.. Lovett is similar. The
existence of the corporation was estab-
lished. and the court was only called on to
pass upon its power. In Nickel VS.. Ger
mania Trust Society. l6 Harrison Ind. r.,
ISL, the court said persons contracting with
an association are estopped from denying
tract This defense was made at the trial
on the merits, and not in limine, as in the
case at bar. If the defense had delayed
this exception till then, they cduld not have
made such defense. Silvernagle vs..
Fucker, 81 A., u.s. Dyona vs. Steamer
Osceola, II A., 277; Lewis Hausson & Co.
vs. Homer ct ais, % A., 25l. If the de-
tense had been set up in abatement it
would have been effectual. In Mutual Fire
insurance Company VS.. Horner, IL Girls
Ohio. 407, the defendant was member of
he company. and set up that they he'd
allied to comply with their charter.
The court said corporations are to
BE limited strictly to the powers
but 1t does not come with good
race from a cOrporator after aiding to put
corporation into action and partaken of |
is benefits to deny its existence, in order !
o escape from its responsibilities. In the |
ase at the bar the defendants were never |
members of the association, and this case |
las no weight. In Doyle Va. Peerless Pc
roleum Company, Al Barbour, 239, suit |
n equity the court held that any advantage |
aiken OF defect in the organization of a |
must be by action at law'by the !
state taking steps to dissolve it. Tarbell |
IS. Page "a His, AZ, and Rice va. Rock |
sland Railroad Company, u Ills, SO, main |
ain the doctrine that a srockhoder can not |
lead intormalitv to escape his liability. |
There is no analogy between these cases !
nd the, one at bar. Eagle Works VS.. |
. Ellsworth, a suit of a foreign |
orporation against resident of New York |
nd. Pease & Brooks Paper Works, VS..
Villett, l Robertson, l3l, are SIM
lar and decide under New York code.
ection 426, in relation to proof OF foreign
tatutes and charters. They do not apply |
o this case. In Boston Betting Company
s. Simonds the non existence of the corpo-
alton was set up with general denial.
he court, Wyly j., say the defendant ad-
litTed the capacity of the plaintiff to stand
! judgment. The case at bar is not Grip
led by such pleadings. and can not be con-
rolled by this case. The pivot in this case
that the Workingmen's Accommodation
;ank never had any legal existence and
an not claim the rights of a person in esSe
r stand in judgment without having a
rima facie existence. Nnilus contu,Odum
,pere patest de injuria saa propria. If the
laintiifs were defendants they would be
stopped from setting up their legal non
for the same reason or take ad
antage OF their disregard of law. Bigelow