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

~s;.s:s ~ If ooj66 % ray this un-
= 80 elaiM. - sok up the propetfy
1879 l1uuoafl3ANol1 for sale, when 1t |
- efxiack a. On Ludedng's bid OF $50,
005l IS the parsons we have named. /
This Wns on Saturday, Late In the after
nooo. ara on The Monday next ioiioW |
~ - ohae3ase decd was delivered
- - bidders, though receipttng in1
partso sch Other, have still In their
hands the whole Of their bid, except
06ob 5A the amoant Of costs paid to the
: Thus directors ofthe company, owing
duties Is III stockholdess and creditors,
mot ONLY combined to obtain the compa-
ny's property for themselves ct Q sacri-
Ace, through the ffomality of q judicial
eale. but were active participants In |
succeesful effort. to defeat sale for
$3.50. 600. In order that they might |
become the purchasers for $50. 900.
sItisimpoesible TO sustain such trans
action. Throughout it was grossly In
equitable. That the property was
sacrificed by means Of an unlawful ana
wide spread com bination isabundantiy
proved, and that the directors who were
parties to It, and who became the pur-
chasers, were guilty Of an inexcusable
violation OF confidence Eeposed In them
0Ot&11C Oh 40 0OuOVs AASSSSAsAs0e - - - ~
was net director, but he was a leading
member OF the combination and Its
chief agent to carry out it's plans. He
knew its purposes. He knew its ille-
Rality. He had negotiated the sur
render Of Horue, with full knowledge
OF Horne's breach of trust. Heassumed
the cOntrOi of Gord0n's executory
process, and, as we nave noticed, when
told that Gordon had consented to stay
the sale. lie declared that Gordon had
no power to do 1t. Indeed, Ludeling
appears to have had compete posses-
sion OF the sheriff. He drew up the
sheeiff's return; care fully stating In 1t
that all the requirements and fOrmali-
ties OF the law had been complied with
In the second Offering as they had been
In the first, and he was, as the evi.
dence shows, most active In defeating
m rehabilitation to Branner 4 90. on
their large bid.
The connection of Stubs and Wad-
dell with the combination we have al-
ready suf1ciently shown, and it Is not
claimed that the other defendants,
Crossley and Ph,s.ipe, are anything
more than volunteers. They have
paid nothing. The sheriff adjudicated
the property to them, and his deed was
made to them, In common with Others,
but It is proved that their interest Is
only nominal, each having had one
share given to him. They were intro
duced to enable the confederates to
carry out their scheme. PinCkard,
according to his own statement, was
party to the agreement Of February
Q, 1896, between Ludeling and his
friends, and Horne and his friends.
He was therefore one Of the parties to
Tho ,snl~ vu,fi,l rs~r,n hi a klon
The defendant can take nothing from
such sale, thus made. We're we to
sustain 1t, we should sanction q great
moral and legal wrong, give encourage
me1t to faithlessness to trusts and con-
6dence rep0sed, and countenance COM
bination to wrest by the forms Of law
from the uniformed and conf1ding
their just rights.
No words need be expended to show
that the North Louisiana and Texas
Railroad Company, must fall with that
OF the other defendants. The new
company was formed by the purchasers
at this illegal and void sale. It was
organized while this suit was pending,
and it has no other title than that of
these purchasers.
It remains only to consider the effect
of the judgment In the monition suit
instituted by these defendants on the
2lst day of April, 1866. They contend
that the judgment OF homologationr rem
dered In that suit conclusively estab
fishes the validity of the sale made to
them, and bars the present bill. But
we think such Is not the effect Of the
Judgment. The proceeding to homo
logate q sberin's sale is peculiar 10
Louisiana. It Is authorized by an act
of the Legls lature passed March 10,