New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-07-26
The New Orleans, Mobile and Texas
Railroad-Its Present Condition.

The New Orleans, Mobile and Texas
Raflr0ad-Its Present Condition.
Almost ever since the creation of this
company by the act of February 20, 1870, it
has been the cause of important and pro.
tracted litigation in the State and fed
eral courts. At present there are five
suits on the docket of tho Superior
District Court, the most important of which
are those of the State against the road
In October of last year, Assistant Attorney
General Fellows, fearing the managers of
the road would remove all of its rolling
stock and portable property, then and now
west Of the Mississippi, and on which the
State claimed privilege on its issue of
bonds to the amount of $750.000, to the east
side of the river, and beyond the jurisdic
tion of the court, procured an injunction re
straining them from so doing. This injunc-
tion has never been eet aside. Another suit
was filed in the name OF the State Decem-
Der l, and writ of sequestration issued.
This still holds as good as any order of
court. July 3, Judge Hawkins, in the original
suit of the State for the return of the bonds
advanced, the contract not being fulfilled,
ordered the return of the bonds or the
seizure of the road by the parish sheriffs.
These are the principal suits affecting the
existence of the road, the others being those
of contractors and other creditors.
The history of the cases in the United
States courts is more complicated and the
vonoro v,oOro volupo II, o,,r Tho v,,ost ;,,.nor
tant case is that of Frank M. Ames. His
bill of complaint recites two mortgages,
executed by the road to Oakes Ames and
Edwin D. Morgan, as trustees for the bond
holders, March Is, 1870, and January l, 1872,
and the succession Of the orator; also, act
of March II, 1869. providing for mortgage
of $l2,6O0 per mile and a second series of
bonds with the guarantee of the State, Sc
cured by second mortgage to the Gov
ernor of Louisiana; that this mortgage was
executed July l, 1870, and S75 bonds of
$1,000 each issued; that the road failed to
complete it's contract; that there is due on
the first mortgage for principal 81 ,25O, 900, i,
and for interest $l,Ol5,O00, and there is due
for principal on the second mortgage
1000, and for interest 1922 500; further,
that the property is now under the control
of the plaintiff, Frank NJ. Ames, and
prayed for q decree of sale, which was
granted and ordered to take place after
six weeks publication. The order further
says the completed portions of the road !,
seventy miles, should be sold in one parcel:
the balance "a the trustees should deter
mine; the sale to be for cash, the trustee of
the first and second mortgages being al.
lowed to bid for their respective contingent
trusts, and not be required to pay more
than the sum due to the mortgage. F. A.
Woolfley was appointed master in chancery
to conduct the sale and see that it was
done fairly. In case that a person shall
bid who is not connected with the mort
gagees as trustee, and IN any case where
money shall be paid to the trustee by any
party, the sum shall be deposited in the
State National Bank to abide the confrma-
tion of the report of sale, in the names of
the trustees. Ten days was allowed for the
report.
These proceedings were had May %, 1874
and were entirely independent of rnd had
no reference to those before the Superior
District Court. Nor is there any reference to
the orders of Judge Woods in the petitions
State was filed and writs of Injunction and
sequestration issue d long before the order
of Judge Woods was issued.
The original suit of Ames against the
road was thus compl etc. June l, 1874, he
filed bill against S. B. Cole, praying for
an injunction again nst Lyman j. Dodge and
Robert w. Rogers ct ais. This injunction
was issued, served on these defendan ts
June 9, and direc ted them to refrain from
prosecuting any suits against the railroad
SO far as to affect the possession, custody OF
control of the pr operty embraced in the
deeds Of trust to Ames and Morgan, OF
show cause June II. On this day the
case was continued to the first Monday OF
September. About this time there appea RS
to have been an agreement between the
parties to the suits in the different courts,
for there is filed as evidence kilograms of
June Ii, Is and l6 declaring the contract
not to seize for thirty days broken, and tina
the road was seized Monday, June Is.
On this a supple me ntal bill, sworn to by
Frank NJ. Ames be fore Fisher Ames, in
Boston, was filed July 81. This complaint
prays that "acting Governor William Pitt
Kellogg, A. P. Field, J. B. Cotton, j. @. A
Fellows and the sheritfs of the parishes OF
Jefferson, St. Charles, st. John, St. James
and Ascension and Rockford & Stew
art be joined to the defendants in
the original bill, and that the in
junction already issued be made to
apply to them. The bill recites the acts o.
incorporation Nov ember "a, 1866, and Feb
ruary II, 1867; the enactments of other
States; the construction Of the road from
Mobile to New Orleans; the necessity to
raise money, and the mortgages to Ames
and Morgan; the mortgage to the Governor
of Louisiana, and the issue of e75 bonds
July l, 1870, at $12 500 per mile; that the
validity of these mortgages is not impugned;
that March 8, 1869, a mortgage was executed
to Peter Butler and j. Fl. Gardner, to take
effect in April 1872; that April 3, 1873, by a
decree of the court, the road was sold to
them; that the road itself has not had con-
troll of the property since that date; that
Gardner and Butler held for the cestin que
trust, and Frank NJ. Ames has succeeded
them; that in May bill was filed against
the road and Governor Kellogg, and de.
cree of inj junction was issued accordingly.
1t further recites the proceedings in the Su-
perior District Court, under section seven