Case Name: DREWES & CO. v. HAM & SEYMOUR
Court: Superior Court of Louisiana
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1921-07-05
Citations: 157 La. 861
Docket Number: No. 24533
Parties: DREWES & CO. v. HAM & SEYMOUR.
Judges: ROGERS, J., takes no part.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 861–871

Head Matter:
(103 So. 241)
No. 24533.
DREWES & CO. v. HAM & SEYMOUR.
(July 5, 1921.
On the Merits Feb. 2, 1925.
Rehearing Denied March 2, 1925.)
. (Syllabus by the Gourt.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
1. Appeal and error <@=801 (4) — Justiciable question properly brought up will not be considered as ground for motion to dismiss appeal.
A justiciable question properly brought up by appeal will not be considered as a ground for a motion to dismiss the appeal.
On the Merits.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
2. Courts <§=489(11) — State court can issue preliminary and ancillary injunction to restrain national bank from paying draft.
State court can issue preliminary injunction against national bank to restrain it from paying draft under letter of credit as ancillary to main demand against different defendant, Rev. St. U. S. § 5242 (Comp. St. U. S. § 9834), preventing injunction, etc., against national bank or its property before final judgment not applying.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; E. K. Skinner, Judge.
Suit by Drewes & Co. against Ham & Seymour. From a judgment dissolving an injunction, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed, motion to dissolve injunction overruled, and case remanded.
Denegre, Leovy & Chaffe and Charles Rosen, all of New Orleans, for appellants.
Donelson Caffery and St. Clair Adams, both of New Orleans, for appellee..

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
MONROE, C. J.
Plaintiffs having obtained an injunction against defendants and the Whitney National Bank, prohibiting and restraining defendants from demanding or attempting to enforce payment of a certain draft for $100,800, drawn under a letter of credit issued by the bank, and prohibiting and restraining the bank from paying the same out of petitioners' funds and charging the payment to their account, the injunction, on defendants' motion, was set aside by the trial judge, in so far as it was directed against the bank, and this appeal was allowed from that ruling. Defendants now move to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has the effect of maintaining the injunction, the issuance of which, they allege, was beyond the authority of any court as being in violation of section 5242 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (Comp. St. § 9834).
The motion is identical in terms with that filed in the case of Barkley & Co. v. Ham & Seymour, No. 24534, 103 So. 245, of the docket of this court, arising out of transactions similar to those here disclosed; and the motion in that case was denied, for reasons which are entirely applicable to and are adopted for the purposes of the motion now under consideration.
It is not here asserted that the dissolution of the injunction may not work the plaintiffs an irreparable injury, and the question whether it was competent for the trial court to issue the writ is a justiciable one which that court was bound, to decide, and which is reviewable in this court on the appeal, but not on the motion to dismiss the appeal. State v. Marks, 30 La. Ann. 70, 71; Baker v. Frellson, 32 La. Ann. 822; Succession of Baumgarden, 35 La. Ann. 675, 676; Pasley v. McConnell, 39 La. Ann. 1097, 3 So. 484, 485; Brewing Co. v. Boebinger, 40 La. Ann. 277, 4 So. 82; Dreyfus v. Am. Bonding Co., 136 La. 491, 67 So. 342; Board v. Meridith, 140 La. 269, 275, 72 So. 960; Citizens' Bank, etc., v. Bellamy Lumber Co., 140 La. 497, 501, 73 So. 308.
For the reasons thus assigned therefore, and for those 'assigned in Barkley & Co. v. Ham & Seymour, supra, the motion to dismiss is denied.
Post p. 872.