The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-02-16
INTERESTING DECISION.

az tNkGhE1l DEOiStVHs
In the Mobile Tribune, Of February
11th, we find u full report OF the de-
cision OF the United States Circuit
Instituted last May by Mr.. Morris
Ketohum, of New York, to recover the
trusteeship OF the Mobile and Ohio
Railroad, from which he had been re-
moved In 1863 by the Court Of Chancery
at Mobile. This removal was based on
the fact that Mr.. Ketehum was resi-
dent OF New York, and an alien enemy
of the Confederate States. The re-
moval of Mr.. Ketchum was provoked
by the directors Of the Mobile and Ohio
Railroad Company, and the ROAD was
placed In the hands OF receivers, who
held It during the war OF secession.
were without notice to him, when the
Mobile court could exercise no jurisdic-
tion over him, and when, during the
war, it was political, civil and physi-
cal impossibility for him to appear and
defend his rights and protect the rights
Of his Ccstuts Qui trust.
He Is now the sole survivor OF the
original trustees, and brings suit to be
reinstated In his rights and to oust the
parties who have held possession under
the decree OF the Chaneery Court OF
Mobile. before referred to. The de
PENDANTS made parties are the Mobile
and Ohio Railroad, and VIM. Bntler
Duncan and A. Foster Elliott. These
proceedings, In behalf Of Mr.. Ketchum,
were instituted last year by Mr.. Ed
ward Lewis Andrews, OF New York, o
youpg and rising member OF the Bar OF
that city and native OF this city, who
will be remembered by many of our old
residents as the bright and gifted young
gentleman who some twelve or fifteen
years ago. when In his teens, attracted
| so much attention by his admirable let,
ters as q correspondent or the crescent
newspaper. This suit lately came on
| for trial in Mobile and engaged much
attention and interest on account OF the
immense property involved, the impor-
tant questions raised, and the ability oil
the counsel who participated In the ar
guments.
For the complainant, that eminent
jurist, Judge Hoadley, OF Cincinnati,
the same who made the recent ex-
haustive argument on the eligibility
question before the Electoral Commis.
sion, appeared as counsel, associated
with our acute and learned fellow-c citi-
zen, David O. Labatt, and with Mr.
T.. T.. Andrews, The managing solicitor
For the defendants were Judge John
Il. CafnpDeh, 06oiB@ I- oVo""I" ~~"
Peter Hamilton.
The case Was argued on q plea In bar
and demurrer. The judgment OK the
court is now before US. 1t occupies a
whole page OF the Mobile Tribune. II
Ia an elaborate and lucid discussion o1
various interesting questions and 1u!ly
sustains all the points made by Mr.
Ketchum's counsel. These points may
be guccinctly stated to the following
effect: That q Judgment against Ar
Ketchum during the war, by @ Confed
crate court, whilst he resided In New
: York and could not be served with no.
: tice, and, II he had, could not nav
r brought himself within the jurisdiction
, OF said court. could not divest him OF tn
! rights acquired by him under a contrac
: and deed Of trust made before the war
> that during the war OF the rebellion
: court within one Of the Confederat
t States could not acquire jurisdiction
citizens of the United States residin
: and being at tho time in the States ad
= herring to the Government OF the Unite
l.. States. That trust Is an estate. In
= court adopts Justice Bradley's explana
q ton and Limitation of the autnorit
9 and force Of judgments and acts OF til
Confederate State governments an
q courts:
: Gas a general rule, In my ju dgmen
i all transactions, Judgments and decree
[ which took place in conformity Wit
!. existing laws Of the Confederate State
/, bet,veen citizens thereof, during the lat
l. war, ercept such as were directly In al
d of the rebellion, ought to stand good.
a In the opinion Of the Supreme Cour
r. delivered by Justice Strong, after quo
q ing from the former decisions OF tt
l. court on the subject, he states the ru
IT thus: "All the enactments OF the
d facto Legislatures in the insurrectio
Q ary States, during the war, auh1ch 1De
sr not hostile to the Union or to the author
Y tv of the general government, and 1ohu
e a0ere not IN conflict aOith the constitute
20 Of the United States, or Of the State
lr have the same validity as il they ha
D. been enactments of legitimate Leglsl
le lures" He proceeds. "Any other do
ID trine would work great and unnecessa
~ hardship upon the people or tho
Y; States without any corresponding ben
f. fit to the citizens Of other States, al
W without any advantage to the nations
o. government. .,,.
at The Mobile court having no jurisdi
v tion over Mr.. Ketshum in the matt
i'll OF his removal from the trusteeshlp,