The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-07-08
:. ESD, New Orleans:


Dear Sri look upon Judge Woods decree
as utter reversal of the decree Of the Su-
preme Court II every princiRle nyolysd Only
possibilities Of U worry favorable and lueratiye
sale. The nnnullment Of the deed Of the sheriff
to Ludeing and associates because OF fraud, as
set forth in the opinion Of the Supreme Court
is palliated and washed out by Woods leaving
open the question of the right Of defendants to
share in The net earnings h Of the mortgIaged
The costs of court as read the decree, seem to
be thrown upon the plaintiffs disgusting per.
version and Virtual reversal of the decree of
the Supreme Court. Ludelng and associates
seem to be the injured parties, and therefore
are the benefcaries Of all the favors.
The kernel, 100000 in round numbers. is to be
paid them out of a sale Of the property: then
they are relieved Of costs because they are
wronRed by being brought into court to seek
their rights; end, lastly, after having been
caught and made to disgorge the stolen prop
erty. Judge Woods says. In effect, that the right
owners shall possibly have to qualify and soften
since 1t came into righful hands. Disgust
ing" Is q mild expression to convey ones feel
ings under these circumstances.
II the Code gives Ludellng and associates
1891 $3.50 AZ, and they are entitled to that number
Of dollars aud cents. what right has the court to
deplste that sum provided the road does not sell
for 1893, oss 3s2 On what principle does he force
Ludelng and associates to take less than the
law according to his construction OF t) fixes as
their right? II seems that Woods makes lair as
tceH as dispenses Justice His decree in this cas- o
sets him out in the attitude of bull in crock
cry store. He smashes the law as he goes. /
do not know but Woods may be right as to the
mortgages not being O,oners and therefore not
able to require the demolition or removal Of the
improvements placed on the road by Ludeing
and associates. But IL the mortgages are only
mortgages technically and notowners. why does
their attitude carry the burden and not the
benefit Ii mortgages, and the road is sold to
satisfy their claim, why should any possessor
whether in bad fath or In good fnith, interpose
u claim that vitiates or defeats the mortgage?
II the mortgage is y valid lien and has been re-,
instated and revived in oil It's original force and
effect why does IT not rise to the full character
of prior lien and absorb. so to say, the whole
property mor.gaged e the R amount q the t.
satisfy the mortgage lien. and nothing les. II
the Supreme Court decrged the sale for such
satisfaction land unuuestionabiy 1t did do that
very thing. what Is the peculiar equity that in.
tervenes and says the Supreme Court meant
som ething le ss than it said when 1t decided tho
mortgage to be valid and binding on the prop
erty2 II 1t is valid what Is 1t valid for? for true
owners claim, which must respond for inn
| provements. and not to stand In the renl char
must stand in the shoes OF u real owner 10 allow
improvement but can't be considered true
owner In the mat or of eleeting as to acceptance
or rejection of the improvements.
What part OF article sos oil the Revised Code OF
Louisiana prevents the owner from electing the
removal or demolition Of the improvements be-
cause it Is impossible to remove or demolish
them without destroying the property OF which
they form part, The plaintiffs, asks ,demoli-
tion and Ii they have right TO 1T. ana the LOSE
will be their own, does II not show extra. solicit
tude on the part Of the court to make the plain
tiff take care Of his own INTEREST," Does not
Woods grow perg tender Of the plaintiffs hteres
as the case progresses.
What becomes OF the stockholders Of the w.
3. and Il. Railroad Company Are they not
parties to the suit Their name appears in the
bill. Are they not the o,oners2 Was not the de-
cree OF the Supreme Court for their benefit as
well US for the benefit of the creditors Of the
company? Do they not represent the company!
Can no owner technically be made to appear as
party plaintiff to the bill 1t seems that the
ninth paragraph ofthe decree rendered by Judge
Way on Of i uness hs snpreme Court gets
| anol her whack at the case and teaches Woods
some common sense: or, shall say, coDnlo,
honestv2 The sword of justice will cut through
such cross threads the next time an indie
pendent and upright court gets the case before
1t. Very truly, your obedient servant.