About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Francis C. Black and James Chapman, Plaintiffs in Error, v. J. W. Zacharie &(and) Co., Defendants U.S. 483 (1845)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0320 and id is 1 raw text is: JANUARY TERM, 1845. 48a Bla-qk et al.ov. Zacharie°& Co. given by that court to the will ought to. have been.the ride of con- struction for this court. Mr. Chief Justice TAzy concurred in the opinion of Mi. Justice MCKINLEY.* Fau cis C. BLAcK AmD JAmES CH m'x, PLAiNTiFFS iN mRtOR, v. J. W. ZAcHARiE .& Co., DEFENDANTS. When a creditor, residing in ouisiana, drew bills of eAchange upon his debtor, residingia South Carolina, which bills were negotiated to a third person and accepted by the'deawee, the creditor had no right to lay an attachment upon the property of-the debtor, until the bills had become due, -were dishonoured, and taken up by the drawer. By the drawing of the bills a new credit was extended to the debtor for the time to which they run. Thed laws of Lpuisiana, allowing attachments for debts notyet due, relate only to absconding debtors, and do net embrace a case like the above. The legAl title to stock held in corporations situated in Louisiana, does not pass under a general assignment of property, until the transfer is compl'eted in the mode'l&ointed out by the laws of Louisiana, regulating those corporations. But the equitable title will pass, if the assignment be sufficient to transfer it by the laws of the state in which the assignor resides, and if the laws 'of the state where the qorporations exist do not prohibit the assignment of equitable interests in stock. Such an assignment will bind all persons who hove notice of it- The laws of Louisiana do not prohibit the assignment of equitable interests in the state by residents of other states. Personal property hasno locality. The law of the owner's domicil is to deter- mine the validityof the transfer or alienation theieof, unless'there is som6 positive or customary law of the country where it is found to the contrary. Tins case .was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for East Louisiana. It was an attachment issued :originally b, the Commercial Court of New Orleans, (a state court,) against the goods and chattels, lands and tenements, rights and mnoneys, effects and credits, of Black, at the instance of Zacharie. & Co., and 'renoved, on the pe- tition of Black, into the Circuit Court of, the United States. Black resided in Charleston, South Carolina, and Zacharie & Co. in New Orleans. In 1837, Black was the, owner of five'hundred shares of the capital stock of the New Orleans Gis Light and Bankihg Company, and six hundred shares of the Carrollton Bank of New Orleans. On the 31st. of May, in that year, he assigned to the Bank of South * On the trial of this case, Mr. Justice Sron was -absent; four of the judges, therefore, ruled the decision.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most