The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-11-18
THE BIG SUIT.
EXCEPTIONS TAKEN BY THE DE-
PENDANTS.

Slim Prospects That the Direct Issue
VIII soon be Reached.
The great suit instituted by the city of New
Orleans vs.. the Southern Bank aud others, to
recover over $685., 900, claimed to have been ille-
gally negotiated by the Southern Bank, as fiscal
agent Of the city. has elected the following
answers from the defendants, which, owing to the
Importance Of the case, we give in full:
ANSWER OF THE BANK.
City OF New Orleans vs.. The Southern Bank, ct
al.-Fifth District Court, No. 1888.
Averring that the petition filed is not signed by
the City Attorney, or by any attorney having
legal authority to represent said City Attorney
or the city Of New Orleans in the present matter;
Averring further. that this suit WAS instituted
in the name OF the city OF New Orleans, but
without any legal authority from said city, evil
denced by an ordinance or resolution specially
passed to that effect by the City Council, and
which IL an indispensable condition precedent;
Averring clearly, that the petition herein was
signed by 8. P. Blanc, Esq, member Of the bar,
without any legal authority to represent the City
ably at the solitary instance of the Mayor, and
possibly the Administrators Of Finance and of
Accounts of said city, and In no manner of the
Council Of said city; and that said Mayor and Ad-
ministrators, jointly or separately; are devoid of
all right or power to direct the institution Of this
suit;
Averring further, that these preliminary de-
lenses are set up, that defendant may know dis
tinctly on whom eventually to fasten the respon-
sbty of the institution OF this suit, which is un.
founded, wanton, libelous, and brought with
view to harm. and to claim from whom Of right
such damages as IL may be proper to demand
And were said exceptions overruled. then the
defendant further excepting, AYERS and charges:
That the city Of New Orleans, the plaintiff
herein, has not, as required by section 81 Of act
No. II, approved 23d February, 1852, levied In
the years 1874, 1875. 1876 and 1877, the tax pro-
vded in said section for the payment Of the ma
tured coupons OF the bonds issued under the au-
thority OF said law, and for the purchase Of said
bonds, whereof there are outstanding more than
four millions Of dollars; and whereof defendant
owns more than one hundred thousand dollars,
with all the unmatured and matured, and I'M
paid coupons thereof, and that by the very terms
such failure entails absolute nullty on all the
acts OF said city, and consequently deprives said
city from all standing In court as plaintiff herein
Wherefore, setting up the foregoing exceptions
se'7atie. the defendant prays that, after hearing
they be sustained and the petition herein dis
missed with costs, and eventually pleading the
same matter otherwise, the defendant, reserving
all rights to further appearance. pravs for gen.
eral relief. E. BERMUDEZ,
Counsel for the Bank.
ANSWER OF THOMAS LAYTON.
City Of New Orleans vs. the Southern Bank ct al.
Filth Dl5trict OOurt, mo. -Inomas Layton,
made defendant herein, joins In the exception
herein fled by the Southern Bank to the mode of
Of this suit, and should said exception
be overruled he says that the petition discloses
no cause Of action against him individually.
Wherefore, he prays that the petition herein be
with costs, and for general relief etc.
E. BERMUDEZ, Attorney.
ANSWER OF DUBUCLET.
City Of New Orleans Va. the Southern Bank ct
lls.-No. -, Fifth District Court Antoine Du-
,uclet, defendant in the above entitled suit, begs
cave to file this. his peremptory exception to
plaintiffs demand; and he AYERS that the allega-
ions contained in the plaintiffs petition do not
damages brought against him individually is |
barred by the prescription OF one year.
Wherefore he prays that plaintiffs petition be |
elected with costs.