The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1879-05-02
\ LONG IOsr LINK TO BE SUPPLIED

10 Do SOLO, ana thus, at last, Jarndyce
and Jarndyce is removed from Chan.
Gerry. This road, as most of the readers
OF this paper know, was chartered with
its eastern terminus on the Mississippi
river, opposite Vicksburg, and its
western terminus on the line dividing
Louisiana and Texas west of Shreve.
port. From Shreveport to the Texas
line, about 10 miles, and from this place
to Delta, about 72 miles, the road is
now In operation. The intervening dis.
tance, between Monroe aud Shreve.
port, about 90 miles, has only been
surveyed three lines, if we are not
mistaken, having been run by as many
different engineers, all prior to the war.
Anything like a full history of the
litigation just terminated would fill
several volumes. A single brief In the
case, printed at this Office, is a volume
In itself.
In January, 1866, the road and all
the property of the ", s. & I. railroad
company was seized upon tho suit of
w. r.. Gordon, of this parish, upon
1920 worth Of unpaid coupons attached
to four bonds of $1,000 each belonging
to Mr.. Gordon. The road was sold on
the Bird of February following. At the
first Offering, Branner & Co. became
the purchasers, but falling to comply
with the requirements Of the Sheriff,
the property was re.offered few
hours subsequent, when Ludeling and
Associates became the purchasers for
$50, 900. Suit was instituted by Bran
ner & Co. to annul this sale, the result
of which was to confirm the title of
Lutleling and Associates to the road.
This was In our State courts.
Meanwhile, III. r. jackson and others,
holding mortgage bonds of the road
issued before the war, brought suit in
the Federal courts to enforce their
mortgage. There were 76l bonds, OF
$1,000 each, with. interest accrued, in
terested in tho suit. The case, after
being passed upon by Judge Woods, U.
s. Circuit Judge of this district, was
appealed to the U. s. Supreme Court.
There the case was decided adversely
to Ludeling and Associates, and the
road was decreetl to be sold, according
to the laws Of this State, to satisfy tho
claims of Jackson aud tho other bond
holders.
Judge Woods appointed receiver
for the road-Maj. J. w. Green, who
Is yet In charge Of the road-and
Master In Chancery to determine the
value of improvements made upon the
road by Ludeling and Associates while
In charge. Tho Master in Chancery
rendered his statement, for what amount
we cannot now say. Labelling and
Associates, however, claimed bal
ance due them from the bondholders
Of the ", s. & 7. Railroad, of $685.
OBJ So. Judge Woods rendered judg-
'nent for about $39o,OoO in favor of
Ludcling and Associates, for better
ments, the decree of the U. s. Supreme
Court ordering the road sold being
imperative until the amount III dispute
could be settled by appeal to the STU
preme Court, to which tribunal both
parties to the suit appealed from the
decision of Judge Woods.
1t was on this appeal and cross
appeal that the Supreme Court rem
dered its opinion on Monday, referred
to In the outset-a suit involving, as
will be understood, the simple ques.
tfon of what amount Ludeiing and
Associates were entitled to out of the
proceeds of the sale of the road, and
not in any way affecting the owner
ship OF the road, which still remains
in the original stockholders, subject to
a decree of sale to satisfy the mortgage
held by jackson and other bond holders
of the road. AS we learn from private
advices, among them kilograms re-
ceived by Judge Ludeling, the Su-
preme Court has not disturbed its orig
inal decree, except to give Ludeling
and Associates a judgment for about
$4,000 for betterments, to be de-
rived, pro rata with the bondhold-
ers, out of the proceeds of the sale of
the road.
This is, SO far as we can now state
from recollection alone, the history Of