New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-05-25
COURT RECORD.
WEDNESDAY, MAY "a, 1876.
United States Supreme Court.

WEDNESDAY, MAY "a, 1876.
United States Supreme Court. n
John d. McLemore vs. the Louisiana
State Bank.-Error to the District Court
for the District of Louisiana 1t 10 unnecee-
sary to consider whether in sll respects the
charge Of the Circuit Court to the jury was
correct. because the record shows the case
OF the plaintiff to be 30 fatally detective
that the Judgment below would not be re-
vereed for instructions, however erroneous.
Brobst vs. Brock, 10 Wallace, SIG; Decatur
Bank Vs. St. Louis Bank, q Wallace, 30l.
owner of certain promissory notes and &C.
ceptances, in possession Of the com
mercial firm in New Orleans of which he
was . member, which were pledged by
the firm in 1861 and 1862 to the bank as &C.
curity for money loaned to them. THIS pa
per was not met at maturity, and. with the
cOllaterals pledged for its repayment, re-
named in possession of the bank until the
eleventh Of June, 1868, when the bank was
put in liquidation by order Of Major Gen
eral Banks. and it's effects transferred to
military commissioners, appointed to close
it up. The officers of the bank, while sub
mitting to this order, because they had no
power to resist it, deemed it unjust and
oppressive, and entered a protest against
it on their minutes. During the admins
tratiOn of the affairs of the bank by the
commissioners, the pledged paper was sold
for less than its face. In January. 1866,
the military liquidation ceased by order OF
Major General Candy, and the effects Of the
bali which were unadministered were re.
stored to the corporators. The plaintiff, on
the theory that the securities were parted
with illegally, seeks to make the bank re-
sponsible for the proceedings Of the com
missioners, but this he can not do. Ger.
taiDly no act was done or omitted to be
done BY the bank Inconsistent with its
duty, for it was only bound to take that
care of the pledge which . careful man be-
slows on his own property. The superior
returning the pledge. is sufficient, and dis
charged the bank. 1t WAS in the midst OF
war, aud there was no course left but sub
mission under protest, - was done by the
bank.
Mr.. Justice Davis delivered the opinion.
United states Circuit Court.
Present-Hon. j. p. Bradley, associate
justice of the Supreme Court; Hon w. b.
Woods, circuit Judge; Hon. E. c. Billings,
district Judge.
Proceedings before Justice Bradley:
Charles Morgan vs. New Orleans. Mobile
and Texas Railroad.-For recision of con-
sirion. Morgan's business is here detailed.
and the compromise terms and business
The agreement was made in New York,
Morgan subscribing 81 .258 600, and receiv-
ing certificates OF stock and conveying
steamships Laura" and Francis" Pont-
chartrain railroad stock, railroad property
northwest of Brashear City and . cash bal
ance: c. a: Whitney & Co. were agents
till the April following. The company did
not fulfill its agreement, and the agents re-
signed. They failed to pay the interest,
etc, and the trustees took possession and
proceedings for Q sale, which was ordered.
An amended bill alleges statements made
in New York, that the assets were 81, ,55l :
600. viz: 81, ,255 900 of bonds Of the company,
$4.14O,O00 Of State bonds, and 81 500 600
second mortgage at sixty cents. and SASS
600 of Calcasieu division, subject to 81, 4O4, J.
900 due subscribers to 1.-TWO million fund"
The court says that the answers furnish
but little light, and proceeds to review the
evidence, and that in rebuttal. Follow
ing this Justice Bradley makes most care
full analysis of the affairs OF the company,
including every asset and subscription,
State and private. He says the complain
ant can hardly ask to have the whole ar
rangement set aside. The company did
not conceal that it was in debt. The list of
securities only contains that which was
known to all parties. If the COZ tract we're
governed by the law of Louisiana it should
be reecinded. On this the opinion concludes
as follows:
L becomes material, therefore, to ascer-
tain whether the contract is to be governed
by the law of Louisiana. The general rule
is that q contract is to be governed as to its
Interpretation, it's nature, it's obligation,
and its performance or dissolution, by the
law of the place where it is made or entered
into. In other words, len loci contrGctus
est lea cOntr0ctus. The first and principal
exception to this rule is, that if the con-
tract is made in one State or sovereignty,
and is to be performed in another State or
sovereignty, it is to be governed by the law
of the place of performance, because it will
be presumed that the parties had the laws
of the latter place in view when they en-
tered into the contract. The rule and the
exception have been fully discussed and
commented upon by Mr.. Justice Story in
his Conflict of Lawe, and by many other
writer's on private international law, and It
is unnecessary to review those discussions
here.
n this case the contract was made in New
York by persons who resided there. The
railroad company, it is true, was cOrpOr.
alton originally chartered by Alabama, and
subsequently capacitated by the laws of
Louisiana and Texas to exercise all its
faculties in those States: but it's directors
and officers mostly resided in New York
and other Northern States. and its principal
Office was in New York, and the meetings
of its directors were usually held there. In
this case all the negotiations which led to
the contract we're carried on in New York.
and the contract itself was concluded and
executed there.
But on the other hand the interests opera
tions and property which formed the prin-
cipal object of the contract were located in
the Southern States bordering on the Gulf
of Mexico, to wit: Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana and Texas; and largely in the
State of Louisiana. The contract was made
with reference to these interests, operations
and property, but it's direct object, that Is,
the things stipulated and agreed to be done
and performed, were to be or might be, IN
part done and performed in New York as
we'll as in the States referred to. This will
appear when We look at the contract
little more particularly.
It is altogether personal contract, pro-
viding for the doing Of certain acts on the
one side and on the other. Its object was
continuance of business opposition between
the parties. 1t is evident that many Of the
acts stipulated to be done could be, and in
fact were done in the city of New York.
There Morgan executed and delivered to
the company the various deeds and trans
fers of property which he agreed to do;
the conveyances of the property in
Mobile, the bills of sale of the steamers,
the transfer of the POntchartrain
Railroad Company stock. the conveyance Of
the sailroad rights north and west. OF
Brashear City. There he made his stipu-
lated subscription to the securities OF the
railroad company; there the company de-
livered to him the said securities; namely,
the bonds and certificates of stock. But
the discontinuance of the steamboat bust.
mesa between Mobile and New Orleans, and