New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-24
SINGLE COPIES: FIVE GENTS.
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF rnE srArE OF LoulslAMA.
VOLUME vIlI-NO. 65.
ORLEANS WEDNESDAY, "a,
COURT RECORD.

COURT RECORD.
TUESDAY, JUNE q, 1874.
Superior District Court.
The following petition was filed;
New Orleans, jackson and Great North
ern Railroad va. Louisiana Levee Com
pany.-Petition alleges debt of S5l4,-
l67 ~ for this that plaintiffs road forms
the come ctiOn between New Orleans and
Mississippi; that they are common carriers,
and interruption Of business causes i'm
mense loss; that the object Of the defend
ant corporation is the protection of the
levees; that under act No. 4 of 1871, and
act No. AZ of 1873, defendant company
took possession of it's franchises; that It
bad sole power over the levees; that the
State levles an annual tax subject to
the. order of defendant; that defendant
has failed to protect plaintiffs railway;
That It's business is interrupted by the
Bonnet Care crevasse for twenty eight
miles since April 16, 1874; that the levee
was in bad condition prior to the crevasse,
and defendant failed to strengthen it; that
petitioner expended $23.6ll SO on it; that
the crevasse was the result Of the negligence
and Indifference of defendant; that it pre-
tends to have been absolved FROM liability
by act No. Sc of 1874; that the bill was
never passed by the Legislature, not hav-
ing been read three several days, according
to article forty-two of the constitution; that
the act never passed its first reading; that
plaintiffs loss in earnings was S12 ,1H SO;
that its estimated loss to August is $l72,
40 40, and the damage to the road bed is
100000, for which they pray judgment.
superior Criminal Court.
NOLDE PRosEQUI ENTERED.
State vs.. Henry Rombach. and
battery on State officer.
CONVICTED.
s. Latouretfe, fifth justice Of the peace, Of
extOrti0n under color of Office.
John Moore, alias Morris, of burglary.
Pat Jones and JOHN Collins, OF robbery.
First District Court.
INFORMATIoNs FILED.
Assault and battery-Charles and John
Fourth District Court.
John Wagner VS.. Jeremiah Coleman
Judgment for defendant.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following de-
cision:
Factors and Traders Insurance Company
Vs. Marine Dry Dock and Ship Yard Com
pany.-The plaintiff alleges that it is the
owner of certain shares of stock, by trans
fer from Kearny, Blois & Co., who pledged
it, etc.; that the defendant had notice of
said pledge and transfer, which it ignored.
The plaintiff asks judgment for the full
amount of said stock, with interest. The
defendant alleges that it had no notice Of
the transfer, etc. to the plaintiff, and that
in consequence thereof, the said shares were
transferred on the books of the company to
another party. The counsel for defense, in
an argument Of much ability and indicative
Of close and analytical research. contended
that the certificates of stock were only the
evidence of right to stock, and that the
title thereto did not pass by the transfer of
the certificates; that the title was to be
found on the books alone, as it was impOs-
sible for the company to have any other
guide in the payments of accruing divi-
dends. This is ingenious and plusible, but
subjected to the stern rules of demonstrative
logic, think its fallacy becomes apparent.
The certificates are the evidence only Of own
'ership of stock A deed Of sale Of land is
nothing more than evidence of title thereto.
A promissory note is only the evidence of
indebtedness, but the possession OF either
carries with it the presumption Of owner
ship of whatever is Of practical value in it.
The Civil Code, article 1862, declares that
1.-THE contract must not be confounded with
the instrument in writing by which it is
witnessed. The contract may subsist, al
though the written act may, tor some de-
feet, be declared void, and the written act
may be good and authentic, although the
contract it witnesses be Illegal. The con-
tract itself ia only void for some cause or
defect determined by law" Article 1886
"The cause is unlawful when it ls forbid
den by law, when it is contra bonOs mores
CONTRARY to moral conduct), or to public
order"
Where there is no incapacity attaching to
the persons, or illegality in the cause or
consideration of a contract, it is perfected
by the simple consent Of parties. The law,
for wise purposes, has varied the manner
and mode Of proving that consent, accord
ing to circumstances and the classification
Of the objects of contracts. If the
argument of counsel is sound as
to the certificates in question, it
is equally applicable as to all other evil
dences Of debt, because the principle IN
volved is essentially and in fact the same.
"Ownerehip is the right by which a thing
belongs to some one in particular to the ex-
clusion Of all other persons" Art. 488 c. c.
The ownership of a thing is vested in him
who has the immediate dominion Of it.
Art. 4S9. Apply this law to the certificates
in question, and the theory Of the defense
vanishes, think. into ''thin air." When
Kearny, Blois e. Co. became the ownsrs of
the certificates all the evidence of the OWL
ership of the shares of stock therein desig
mated was in them. The company had no
control whatever over them. Kearny,
Blois & Co. held the absolute ownership of
those shares, and they alone could sell and
transfer them. They did pledge and trans
fer them to the plaintiff who Immediately
became possessed of all the rights OF the
firm of Kearny, Blois & Co. The dominion
of this firm was exclusive, for it can not be
imagined for moment that although
they were the perfect owners tArt. 490
C. C.), invested to the fullest extent with
the right to use, to enjoy and to dispose OF
them in the most unlimited manner"
TART. 49l y that, nevertheless. the defendant
had the simultaneous right to determine to
what extent and how Kearny, Blois g. Co.
would pledge, transfer and sell their stock;
3 How, 483; see Bigel0w on Estoppal page
537; An. e. Ames on Cor, sections SAG and
547, pages 5567-S; Civil Code 24Sl; 10 An,
fore the sale and transfer of the stock in
August. 1870 The firm of Kearny, Blois &
Co. had complete control of the finances of
the corporations; that Blois was its presi-
dent, alcne authorized by the charter to
issue certificates Of stock; these wese the
only evidences of title of stock to the trad
ing community, and was also the transfer
agent of the company. he had free and
daily access to the books; was seen vigi-
lantly looking over them, the cash book
as president of the company,
paid dividend to plaintiff / think this
sufficient notice. Hen. Dig, 1880. No. 9;
"a New York, 30; SO Barbour. 535. The
exclusive right of issuing certificates, and
of making the book entries, have no other
object than the protection of the company
securing and enforcing its own equities
against stockholders.
On the foregoing observations reference
ia made to "a N. Y Rem. naga 30: 46 n. y.