New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-09-22
COURr RECORD.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 81. 1874.
AnneriaH llisfrica Court,


CITY of New Orleans We. William and
Fred Aipkin, j. Rusha and many others
In oil these cases the City Attorney has
taken a rule Of contempt tor the defend
ants to show cause Why they should not be
punished for keeping their dairies open in
defiance Of the Injunction Of the court.
Louis Fix VS.. Citizens Bank.-The de-
fendant having filed petition of appeal
Judge Hawkins gave the following reasons
for refusing it:
In this case . petition is presented for au
appeal from the orders issued by this court
on the twelfth instant.
The orders were three, an injunction, a
judicial representation and an appointment
of receivers and managers. Neither are or
have the effect Of final Judgment. All
are conservatory; all may be modified or
revoked Oh due motion or showing. The
allegations are broad and comprehensive.
They were sworn to, but many Of them
were of that kind OF public notoriety which
amounts TO evidence, and were within the
cognizance of the court. The bank had
failed. 1t is State institution, q func tion-
arv. as it were, of the State, with large
statutory privileges and powers, and the
custodian of the States credit TO u great
extent Its acts we're az cOgnisable as the
prOclamations of the Governor. The allie
cations Of the plaintiff showed q state OF
hundred, of others, and the inter-
eats and safety Of the State. Even
i: plaintiff had not petitioned for it, it
was the duty Of the court under the cir
cumstances to issue Judicial eequestra
ton. The bank had ceased to pay all checks
for deposicors. Should it go on conveying
property. releasing mortgages and setting
by exchanges with one. while leaving
others to the chances Of future liqulda-
tion? It was proper for the orders to ISSUE
all of which were dissolvable upon neces.
sity or cause shown.
The petition for appeal does not pretend
TO say that either OF these orders has tho
! effect Of final judgment. while the com
parison of the broad allegations OF the petl-
ton. and facts Of judicial cognlzanse, snow ,s
that such conservatory orders were the
| least the court could DO to preserve the
rights and safety of all parties. The state
| of facts once in the knowledge OF the
court either through or beyond his al
| legations, assumed a magnitude entirely
beyond his personal and individual inter-
| ests and receivers would necessarily have
had to be appointed and sequestratlon
| for the time being ordered. even II he had
| failed to pay for it. The receivers and
managers were, Of course. only TO act dur
| iug the pending Of the suit or until the
l further orders OF the court. which would be
| and will be allowed in favor OF defendant
| if it ask for and prove to be entitled to
| them. In the meantime, however, An ad'
ministrstion dehors the statutes and gen.
| eral conversion and transfer OF assets can
not be allowed, hence the restraining in
| junction, which was a preliminary order
strictly within the discretion of the court.
The petition for appeal does not pre-
| tend to say any of these orders
amount to final or definite Judgment; il
they, or either of them does, then every
| preliminary injunction OF restraining order.
! and every judicial sequestration is. and
must be, final Judgment. But such is, in
no sense the case. particularly in the present
instance.
ANY administration or liquidation BY the
| directors outside of and not entirely in pur
suance of the statutes is illegal: whenever
| anything of the kind is attempted it be-
! comes matter for the courts: they alone can
deal with the adjustment of interests OF
! such magnitude to the State and citizens.
l therefore refuse the prayer for suspen
siye appeal.
I second District Court.
| SUGGESTIONS Of Kari Kuhn. Samuel Dow
! ty. Anton Berg. George Hasner. Eliza j
! O'Donnell, wife Of John McNamee ami "
II. Waters. opened.