The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1874-12-18

AS AUoA1s 1Ao ~ OAA0xoxNl1s L II
franchises of the company. To appraise
all this property the appraisers We're
summoned to meet on February 8, the
day of the sale, at 10 O'Clock A. NJ.
They were appointed by Gordon and
Bry, both OF whom were purchasers at
the sale. Obviously il was impossible
for the persons appointed to make any
fair appraisement at that time. Vet
they reported one of all the property at
$75 900 in legal tender notes, and the
sale proceeded. From the sheriff's re-
turn as first made, drawn by John r.
Ludeling, Gordon's attorney, and one
of the purchasers, the sheriff exacteu
an illegal and onerous condition. The
condition was, that the purchaser
should pay cash to the interest coupons
then due, with credit to meet the im-
mature interest and bonds, and should
give bond, with personal security, for
the credit portion of the bid. At the
first cry the property was struck to
George NJ. Branner d Co., for $3.50, 900 !;
but because they failed to pay Mt once
the interest eoupons then due and pre-
sented, the sheriff immediately set up
the property again in bulk, and sold
and adjudicated it to j John I. lutleling,
John Ray, Francis II. Stubbs, Wesley
j. q. Baker, William II. Gordon,
Henry M. Bry, Joseph +. M'Guire,
John A. M'Guire, Robert Ray, Joseph
P.sCrosley, Charles w. Phillips, Robert:
C. Strother, Christopher Fl. Dabbs,
George G. Waddeli, William NJ. Pine
kard and James U. Horne, the said
John Il. Ludeling having bid in the
property for them for the sum of $780,.
600, and they having complied with
the terms of sale by paying the proper.
tionai amounts of the several coupons
due, which were presented for payment,
to wit, $40, ,739 90, to William II. Cor
don, John L. I4udeliug aud James U.
Horne, the holders of one hundred and
fifty-four bonds, and to f. p. Stubs
$3.50 6s, being the amount due on the
coupons he presented for payment.
Such was the sheriff's return. Two
days afterward he made deed to the
purchasers. ..
Were there nothing more in this case
than is narrated by the brief history
thus given, which is uncontradicted, it
would be difficult to characterize the
transaction as anything less than q
great wrong perpetrated by the agency
of legal forms. The great body Of the
bondholders could have known nothing
of the proceeding to sell the mortgage
property and discharge their lien.
Their residence was remote and the
sale was hurried as fast as the forms of
law permitted. Not u day was lost.
They were not afforded an opportunity
to attend aud bid at the sale, or pay Oft
Gordon's small claim of S72O. Neither
they nor their trustee We're consulted.
The sale was made in u village far in
the interior. 1t was advertised in only
one local newspaper, and not a day
longer than the law required, A farci-
cal appraiseinent was made at the last
moment, obviously intended to facili-
tate hasty sale for nominal price.
Oncrous and illegal conditions of sale
were exacted from other bidders, but
not from these purchasers, who paid
nothing except to themselves. A pro-
perty upon which had been expended
nearly $4,000, 900, together with large
stock subscription, a large grant of
lands, and considerable movable pro-
perty, was bought for s50,Ooo by the
very persons VINO defeated u sale for u
much larger price, aud the purchase
money was retained by themselves.
But to a thorough Understanding of
the case it is necessaryto consider the |
relation in which many of the purchas-
ers at the sale, who arc the present
stood to the complainants,
and how far their conduct was consis- |
tent with that relation. AS we have
seen, William r. Gordon, at whose suit
the eXecutory process for the sale was
ordered, was the holder OF four bonds.
These he obtained in. the month of
October, Immediately preceding the ]
sale, paying for them $64O, and by his
purchase he became entitled to the
security of the mortgage ratably with
the holders of the other bonds. In
equity he was quasi owner in COM
mon with the other bondholders of
whatever rights the mortgage gave.
He was not a partner with them, nor
strictly tenant in common, but the
relation into which he introduced him
self by his purchase imposed upon him
some duties. IF he actually held the
mortgage, he held it as trustee.
Whether he did or not, it was a duty
which he owed to the other bondfIoIders
not to destroy its value. When two or
more persons have common interest
in a security, equity will not allow one
to appropriate it exclusively to himself,
or to impair its worth to the others.
Community OF interest involves mutual