The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-08-27
THE RAILROAD CONTROVERSY

Mobile and Texas Railroad controversy, al
representing the views of the plaintiffs in the
case now pending before the Superior Dis
trict Court, in which receiver of the road is
prayed for:
Recently petition was filed in the Supe.
rior Distinct Court, praying for a partition by
limitation of the property formerly belonging
to the New Orleans, Mobile and Texas Rail-
road Company purchased at the sale under
foreclosure of first mortgage bonds by F. N.
Ames as Trustee, for the use and benefit OF
the holders of those bonds, whoever they
might be- Subsequently all opposition hav-
ing been overruled by his Honor, the Judge
of the United States Circuit Court The re-
port of the Master and Trustee was received
and in all things approved, the sale confirmed
and documentary title ordered to be made
to the said Trustee by the Master so soon as
the Trustee complied with the requirements
of the Court,or, in other words, paid the
costs. This final confrmatory decree and
order was rendered on the 9th day of April,
1875, the Trustee in the meantime having
custody and control Of the property, receiving
and disbursing its revenues, but has failed to
pay those costs, or in any particular report to
the bondholders or owners any of his tran
sactions.
Ills bult WIS luStltutcu ny
who desire no logger to hold this property in
common with other bondholders, and ask re-
lief, praying that the property thus purchased
by and confirmed to them by the courts be
judicially sequestered and held in custody OF
the court, all of which was taken into con-
sideraton by the Court the usual order made
in accordance thereto and receivers duly ap-
pointed. This order was in due form of law,
served upon G. II. Allen, Esq. agent and
duly appointed attorney for F. NJ. Ames,
Trustee, and met with refusal on his part to
comply with the order of the Court, on the
grounds that the property was still in the
hands of and under the jurisdiction of the
United States Circuit Court, the documentary
title not having been made, and that the re-
straining order rendered in August. 1874, was
still in force, as against some OF the parties
bringing this suit.
As to the first ground, the property could
not, and ought not, have been in the custody
of the United States Circuit Court, for tine
reason that the court had rendered its final
decree, and the adjudication and confrma-
ton was in fact and in law the title Of
which tho documentary title would be only
an evidence. 1t can not be doubted that the
first mortgage bondholders at the sale be-
came through their Agent or Trustee, the
purchasers. It is safe to say "that purcha-
sers can not be affected by irregularities after
the sale. That the adjudication Of itself
transfers all the debtors rights and claims.
That it is the last proceeding aohich concerns the
purchaser.
1t fixes his condition and is the basis of his
title In addition, this sale was confirmed
after opposition, as before stated. The
United States Marshal and the Master in
Chancery, as we'll as other costs of proceed
ing, have lien and privilege paramount to
all others upon the proceeds. These costs,
no doubt, should have been paid out of the
earnings of the road, or by an assessment
made upon the bondholders for that purpose.
This not having been done is, of itself, evil
dence of the lax administration that has for
years characterized the management of this
property.
As to the second ground the restraining
order granted by the United States Circuit
Court, on the 18th day of August, 1874, re-
straining the Governor of the State, the
Attorney General his counsel, the Sheriff OF
the parish of Jefferson and others from retain
ing in the possession of the Sheriff the prop
erty at that time held by virtue of writ of
seizure in the case of State VS.. The New Or.
leans, Mobile and Texas Railroad Company,
which case, together with all other cases then
in controversy have been decided, the State
relinquishing all claims and compromise
having been effected with all other litigants.
Therefore, the conditions upon which the
restraining order was based having ceased to
exist, the effect Of the order must also cease.
Again, those suits were con ,roversies iasti-
tuted by parties claiming to have lien and
privileges paramount to that of the first mort
gage The present suit is brought by bond
holders against co-owners for partition, who
base their right SO to do upon principle of
law that says "a party can not be compelled
to own property in common with Others.
consequently the restraining order raised for
the occasion of last summer Can not be peril
nent to this issue. Further, this rest, amt
was limited to, and terminated with the final
decree or order of the court in the case in
which it issued.
This affair presents case in which the
agent, who had obtained an injunction
agsinst third parties to protect his principals,
now, when, called upon by his principals to
give up the property purchased by him for
their use and benefit, and to account for his
stewardship, invokes the old injunction,
which has had its effect, to protect himself,
the agent, against his principals, the owners
of the property. in their efforts to obtain
possession of it.
In the language of Chancery pleading, this
would seem to one not particularly versed In
the language of the law, to be contrary to
equity and good conscience.
That widely celebrated auction firm,
Messrs. Hoffman, Marks & Co. have become
fixed in their new establishment, and appear
perfectly at home. They now occupy two
NJ \ -