The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-17

| The statement II" shows that the defendants
conslderabIy over ssooooo in legal tenders. s. and H
OF legal tenders and national bank notes a total
average exceeding the amount Of th.fr capital
| correct statement OF the average condition Of
the bank for the year 1876. shows:
Real estate, ................ 1882 SIG s5
Stocks OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES 1928 95
| Taxes paid Observation-Disclosures. IA 431 6s
Suspended debts. Observation-Disclosures. 81 TAO 80
Foreign and domestic bills protested Is 949 r
Notes and bills discounted ........ 1.ss3.146 Al
Foreign and domestic exchange. 9l9 996 81
| Interest due on loans on call ........ 3.349 At
| Cty7 per cent gold bonds ....,..... 25,75e 90
ieJa tendars ....'. s 49, 4 479 - -
Checks sent to Clearing
House .................. 172 400 10 17e.6o6 10
$424s.716, At
Capital stock 81. ooo.o 900 90
Dividends u, paid..... 1886 90
Individual depositors. 3oA,s59 10
For eign banks and
Circulation...... 9.4H So s..24s.71s At
This, s the Identical statement Upon which
was tried the suit Of the city Of New ORLEANS vs.
Canal Bank, decided by the Supreme COURT Ia
December 1877. and reoorted IN 40 An. s51; neiog
ass essed, as in this case, at 100000. and it ia
conceded by 9 unset that the case at bar differs
In no particular from that quo ed. so far as the
Under these circumstances this court feels
that 1t would be work OF gu pereroeation to . n
ions Thia has BEEN done by Tie highest 5ud
cial tribunal In the State. and conclusion has
been reached which must be regarded ny this
court as permanent Interpretation Of the law
OF the case. 1t Is not improper. however. TO
add that the reasoning of the Supreme Court in
the case referred to seems to this court to be
The petition contains a prayer for 20 per
cent special damages. per cent attorneys fees.
and a recognize of privilege on property.
law authorizing the imposition of these penal
1t Is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed
that there be judgment In favor OF the plaintiff
The State Of Louisiana End agai nst the defend
pany. for the sum of $1O,15o, together with all
costs OF this suit.
Louisiana Levee Company vs. State of Louis
tet ed into between them and tn !, state for the
construction, maintenance aud repair of GER
vided for the levy OF q tax us means of prOyid
ing compensation for the work to be per.
No. t Of seed s. Of Which they
be considered as part of their petition.
They atlege that the State owes them for work
1873. 81 ,745 g.
For work done and money advanced between
October |. 1873. and june %. 1877, exclusive Of
cOlleetibe in 1879 further balance Of
| s5e8.442 a..
FOR WORK 0One IN 1877. In aut1C1 naf1On OF the
tax for 1877 collectible 1878. sl'5 1874.
certain accounts cunt u marked a" sB.S C." an a.
nexed to the petition.
They further allege that by act No. 1879 of 1877
the. State abrogated and annulled said contract:
aud provided, among other things for the bring
the matters and things above set forth, and also
providing for tn. mode of iduida ion aud pay
ment OF any judgment to be obtained by petit
TONERS, the ovls ms of which act were ac-
cepted by petitioners.
They pray for citation and judgment for said
sum OF 81, 70s,s11 SO and interest. ami for such
sums as may be founi to be due them, payable
according to the provisions Of act No. 139 of
| 1877.
Judgment in the ,se OF he State of l. ,usiana
eX s rel the Louisiana Levee Company vs.. Cnarl, s
ness from the State by virtue of the contract
| sued ON.
Further answering, denies all and singular
the allegations Of The petition, and AYERS tn 1t
at tho daIe Of the innorp IRA ion of the plaintiff
company. and at the date Of the alleged CON
contracting any Indebtedness beyond SIS 600 OOO
and that tue State debt at the date OF said con-
tract. exceeded that amount. and that he
State was without authority to Contra t any in
ebtedne-s, an that the contract sued on was.
| therefore, nu! and void and conferred no rights
on the plaintiff.
By consent of counsel auditors were appoint
ed for the examina ion of plaintiffs &C ,onnts
who have made report. which has been offered
by the Assistant Attorney General. which OBJ
jections will BIZ reverted to hereafter.
This report shows the flowing total figures:
Amount to be charged for work done
prior to October l. 1873. 81, 1853 .045 50
Paid out of taxes Of 1912. 1I58.9 4s SO
Balance due to October /. 1878, 81 900, o95 81
Amount t, be charged for work done
from October l, 1873 to June %.
.6I bol 40 ID
Paid from taxes Of 1873-4-5-6........ .101 05
Balance on work from October 1.
1873, to November 25, 1877 $3.50, 1872 40
Amount to be- charged for work done
in advance ag ainst Ia Of l877..... $115124 90
Grand total due June 49, 1877. 81 .7oI, 553 &c.
Items to be aGJudicrted, $lI48 $3.50.
The objection urged by the Assistant Attorney
General TO the admis ion of this report In evil
dence is founded In the first ground Of defense
set up. to wit:
and by thejudgment in the case of TIE state eX
rel. the Louisiana Levee Company Va. Clinton.
Auditor" from claiming any indrb edne-s
from the State by virtue Of the contra 1t sued on.
The record of that case. and particularly the
admissions on page twenty, are offered In suo-
port of this objection. These admissions are as
follows:
louisiana a. he time of the passage of the acts
in question, Nos. and n of the session NJ 1871.
exceeded the sum OF s25 900 900. Act NJ. being
approved February 20. 1871. and act No. n being
approved February %. 1911"
In defense of that suit it YVES urged. UPON the