Claims of Marcuard
Supreme Court of the United States
In these cases, which were several appendages to the case just above reported, and which came here on error or appeal from the .Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana, Marcuard, the Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, and the Merchants’ Bank of New Orleans, alleged that at the time of filing the information mentioned in the foregoing case as the foundation of the sale which was made of the eight hundred and fort3'-four lots and ten squares of. ground in New Orleans, owned by…
Read the full summary
In these cases, which were several appendages to the case just above reported, and which came here on error or appeal from the .Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana, Marcuard, the Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, and the Merchants’ Bank of New Orleans, alleged that at the time of filing the information mentioned in the foregoing case as the foundation of the sale which was made of the eight hundred and fort3'-four lots and ten squares of. ground in New Orleans, owned by Slidell, they respcctivety hold lions against the said propel^. And they were permitted by tlic courts below to intervene…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Strong
The parties now before us complain that they were not allowed to take the proceeds of the sales. But they ought' not to have been allowed to intervene. They had no interest, even if they were lien holders, in the confiscation proceedings. It was only the right of John Slidell, whatever that fight was, that could be condemned and sold, and the sale under the judgment of condemnation in no degree disturbed their liens. . By the decree of condemnation the United States succeeded to the position of Slidell, and the sale had no other purpose or effect than to make the thing confiscated available…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Avegno v. SchmidtSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Citizens Bank v. HyamsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1890