New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-11-19
COURT RECORD.
WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER IS. 1874.

COURT RECORD.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER Is. 1874.
Supreme Court.
Present all the judges.
The rule restricting counsel to fifteen
minutes was ordered rescinded and the old
rule allowing one hours time for argument
re-established.
superior District Court.
Thomas Janney VS.. New Orleans. Chi.
cage and st. Louis Railroad Company
Action tor $773 damages for loss of two
trunks en- route from New York TO New
Orleans.
Alfred MarchanI vs. Louisiana National
Bank and city of New Ocleans.-Petition
alleges responsibility for value OF coupons
on bonds issued by the city of CarrOllton.
November l, 1873: that act NO.1l, of 1874.
annexing that city. determined the respon.
sibility, and prays Judgment for $449 l6.
State VS.. Charles Clinton. --Intervention
of Williams & Guion alleging ownership O.
three bonds issued under act No. 9! of 1871,
and enjoined under paragraphs twelve and
thirty OF the petition; that they were issued
April "a, 1871, and purchased July Z. 1872,
at eeventy-one cents on the dollar. and prays
Judgment for $4,000.
DEFENDANTS answer claims that plaintiff,
specializing in bonds. can not plead ignor-
ance Of laws relative to them. and that
there was no consideration for the bonds.
State ex rel Thomas Lynn vs.. John Cal.
houn, Administrator OF Public Accounts.
Alternative writ of mandamus made per-
emptory, and defendant ordered to draw
his warrant on the Administrator of FL
nance for 1912, less $2s57 so paid February
l. 1874, and $324 paid jane II, 1874.
w. G. WilmOt, Freret ct ais. VS.. city of
New Orleans.-The defendant is enjOined
from bringing any suits for the purpose OF
collecting wharfage dues from coal boats
at coal landings in the Sixth District, ana
the Injunction made perpetual. Under the
constitution of the United States the city
Of New Orleans can not levy tax on COM
merce, nor can it legally collect wharfage
dues unless it has erected the wharves at
it's own expense. Such dues can be only
eyied for the purpose Of remunerating the
CITY for the expense incurred in erecting
the wharves. Having erected none at the
coal landings it has no right to charge
wharfage dues or bring suit tor them.
Morris Ranger VS.. city OF New Orleans
and jackson raiirOad.-Tae following 10 a
synopsis, with the authorities, OF the argn-
ment Of David e. Labatt. Esq, for the
plaintiff:
This is a suit by an alien in State court,
claiming rights Of a citizen, on l57 bonds;
for the purposes OF argument. called
promissory Dotes Of the city OF New Or
leans, Tie maker has failed to pay, and
the indorser, the Jackson railroad, been
notified. There is nothing IN the charter or
pursuit of the road, or the law OF Louisiana.
that gives exemption from liability on COM
nercial paper. In commercial law an un-
qualified Endorsement makes the endorser
responsible. Under the statute the road
had nothing to do but indorse. They were,
in fact bonds payable to the order of the
company. (Act of ls54) They were made
to be Endorsed to give them additional
value, doubts being entertained it the State
could issue them. The authority for the
Endorsement is in the act and they have
been Endorsed as required. verbal testl-
mony that the officers did not intend to
make themselves or the company liable can
not be received. That could only be shown
by Endorsement without recourse" Ii the
bonds are to be considered commercial
paper, the road is liable as indorser. Al
obligation payable to q certain person,
though called bond is in the nature OF
commercial paper. Blake VS.. Livingston
county, 81 Barb. l49.
The liability of an indOrser on such paper
| il inseparable from that Of an ordinary in
dorser. Agents, within the scope OF their
agency, can make their companies liable
An Endorsement may be made on the face
The indorser is affected with the liability OF
| the drawer of bill of exchange; Story
Prom. Notes, 13I. Notes Endorsed in blank
are to be treated az if filed up; Id. l35. Ou
restrictive and qualified Endorsements see
| Id. l6l, IG5, lG6, 10. 1t Elust appear on the
face of the instrument or be known 10 lne
| subsequent holder; 10. la. Endorsement
| includes delivery and denial OF indorse
ment denial Of delivery; Smith Mere Law
o96. 295. Indorsers Of bank bills are liable
Pars. Notes and Bills. "a; Harr. Del, 80
26l The United States government Il
| liable on prolnissory notes and must have
| notice OF protest; II Wheat, $50; Il How.
| 2lo.
| The impeachment in the case is statute
| and the question is If it is valid or the Lee
| islatu.e transcribed it's powers; 10 Wal
| 5l9. Ii it is unconstitutional, 1t IS not pre-
mature to pronounce it so now; Green VS.
Riddle. 8 Wheat. 1t makes no difference il
the law provides remedy. We had rlght
and it Geprives lie of it. The city shields
| itself behind this vicious statute and pro
| yides no means of payment OF the bohds
| The law should be striker from the statute
book because it authorizes the city to 90
| dishonest act. 1t provides that no conr'
| shall issue any writ whatever against 'ne
| CITY. The government OF the city ls no.
| what il was when the law was passed. Their
/
there are only heads Of departments, and
| mo court can mandamus them. The PLAIN
r,ff only asks the remedy he had when ht
took the bonds and before the act was
nsssed, "a law which deprives party O.
ali legal remedy must necessarily De VOID
| Cooley, Const. Linn.
| These bonds are to be governed ny tht
| rules of commercial law, aud not to be I'M
| reached for informality more than othel
commercial paper. City OF Lexing.on ; vs.
| when a contract Is maoe afe POI Va ~
l6 Wal, 3i4,I690. ro.,o
The State and CORPORATION are both liable
The power is a trust which the donor cal
not aunul, and which the donee IS oount
to execute. IA Wal, SIS. The bonds wer'
really issued by the road. They were u
facilitate Its construction, special ta'
having been found too slow. They are no
deeds. though having seals, but have Tn
attributes OF commercial paper. Harlem
Railroad Company VS.. Brainard, % N. Y.
The law depriving the plaintiff of hi
remedy is obnoxious to the constitution, b.
deprivlng him of the benefits of judg
ment. We can not force the city to pay
they should collect tax to pay the bond:
| 1t could use it for another purpose. Their
is no controller and treasurer, and the wri
! must be directed to the Administrator Q
Finance. and that might evade the Law
The law must be administered as it stoo
when the transfer was made. The statut
has brought disgrace on the city. Its bond
are worth only twenty or thirty cents.
is in the attitude Of q debtor who tells b
creditors he will pay when he pleases;
The following is the tull text OF Judg
Hawkins decision:
In 1853 the charter OF the New Oriean
jackson and Great Northern Aailroa4 Con
many was authorized by the State of Louis
l 40 hnri xod fh0 citV OF Ne