15781. Empire City Bank (New York, NY)

Bank Information

Episode Type
Suspension → Closure
Bank Type
state
Start Date
February 1, 1857*
Location
New York, New York (40.714, -74.006)

Metadata

Model
gpt-5-mini
Short Digest
ed00957c

Response Measures

None

Description

Newspaper items from Feb–Sept 1857 report the Empire City Bank had suspended and a receiver (United States Trust Company) was appointed; a referee was later appointed to apportion unpaid debts among stockholders and a receiver is litigating collection of assets. No article describes a depositor run; the bank appears insolvent and in receivership (permanent closure).

Events (3)
1. February 1, 1857* Suspension
Cause
Bank Specific Adverse Info
Cause Details
Bank became insolvent leading to suspension; court-appointed receiver (United States Trust Company) took possession of assets and notes; referee appointed to apportion unpaid debts among stockholders indicating insolvency rather than a rumor-driven run.
Newspaper Excerpt
the Receiver at the time of the suspension of the Bank
Source
newspapers
2. February 10, 1857 Receivership
Newspaper Excerpt
The United States Trust Company of New-York, Receiver of the Empire City Bank, agt. Abram M Bininger and John M. Belton. ... note came into the hands of the Receiver at the time of the suspension of the Bank as part of its assets, Mr. Bininger being President at the time of its suspension.
Source
newspapers
3. March 30, 1857 Other
Newspaper Excerpt
the hearing of the motion for its confirmation is set down for the 30th of March. ... Stepben Cambreling, the referee, appointed by the Court to apportion the unpaid debts and liabilities of the Empire City Bank, has presented and filed his report.
Source
newspapers

Newspaper Articles (5)
1. February 10, 1857 New-York Daily Tribune New York, NY
Article from New-York Daily Tribune, February 10, 1857

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

LAW INTELLIGENCE SUPERIOR COURT-SPECIAL TERM+Feb. 7.-Before Judge DUER. THE EMIGRANT ACT-IMPORTANT DECISION. The issioners of Emigration agt. Wm. F. Schmidt, et al. DUER, The action was on 8 bon gi en by the defendants to discharge a warrant of attachment against the ship Sea Eagle. The bond was for the penalty of $1,000, and was conditioned to be void if the defendent should pay the amount ofall such claims and demands as should be established to have been subsisting liens on the saidship when attached. The complaint alleged that the said ship, on a day named, arrived at the port of New York, with passengars emigrating to the United States, and that after her arrival the master had been guilty of sundry breaches. specifying them, of the provisions of an net of the Legislature entitled, An Act for the Protection of Emi grant Passengers, &c., passed April 13, 1853, an bad thereby become jeet tos penalty of $500, to be recovered by the plaintifs, which was lien on the said ship when attached. It then averred that this claim bad not been paid, and demanded judgment for the amount claimed The grounde of demurrer were, that the act of the Legialature imposing the penalty was & regulation of commerce, and therefore unconstitutional and void. Secondly That the act was void, asextending to vessels and persons not wi hin the juriadiction of the State; and Lastly. That if the act was valid, the attachment was void, the penalty of $500 not being a subsisting lien when it was issued. inasmuch as there bad been no prior adjudication by which the penalty was sued and imposed. Held, That the aet of 1858 was in all its provisions, & regula tion of Police, and not of Commerce, and wastherefore not in consistent with the Constitution of the United States. That the general words of the act, like those of all probibitory and nal statutes, must be restricted to acts done within the jurisdiction of the State, and were therefore applicable only to vessels and persons within that jurisdiction, and that the same construction must be given to the words of the complaint. That the penalty became lién upon the ship, from the time of the commission of the acts by which it was incurred: and that to require a prior adjudication to create the lien woul be contrary to the words of the act and the platu tuten tou or the Legislature. Demurrer overraled, and judgment for plaintiffs, unless de fendantswithin twenty days withdraw demurrer and put in an issuable answer. Mr. Develin for plaintiffs; Mr. Dean for defendants. TRIAL FAM-Before Judge WOODRUFF. The United States Trust Company of New-York, Receiver of the Empire City Bank, agt. Abram M Bininger and John M. Belton. This suit was brought by the Trust Company was Receiver. to recover the amount of note for made by the defendant Bininger and indorsed by the firm of A M. Bininger & Co., composed of both the defendants, which note came into the hands of the Receiver at the time of the suspension of the Bank as part of its assets, Mr. Bininger being President at the time of its suspension. The defendants resisted payment of the note on different grounds. Mr. Bininger says the only consideration received by him for the note in question was eighty sbares of its stock; that be was induced to take this stock and give the note by fraudu lent represental as to the value of the stock, made at the time by certain of its officers and directors; that the stock was absolutely worthless when be received it, and that the note was taken by the Bank in contravention of a statute expressly prohibiting any Bank from taking or discounting any note in pay. ment for any subs ription to its stock. Mr. Bolton's defense was that the note was given out of the regular business of the firm in payment for an individual purchase of his partner, and therefore was not binding upon him. The Jury found a veriet for both defendants Knox and Mason for plaintiffs, and G. Clark and Wm. H. Scott for defendants. Before' Justice WOODRUFF. INSURANCE NOTES James D. Fish agt. DeWolf & Starr. This was an action brought to recover the amount of a promissory note for $1500, given by defendants to the Atl LS Mutual Insurance Company for premiums in advance, and in dorsed by the Company to the plaintiff. The defense was that no miums had been earned upon said note, or policies issued by the Company for the note or any part of it. Verdict for plaintiff $1,606 07 being the amount of note and Interest. Mr. Hutching and Mr. Schell for plaintiff; Mr. Pierrepont for defendant. SUPREME COURT-SPECIAL TERM-FEB. 9-Before Judge PEABODY Thos. McQuads agt. John H. Spring. Motion granted. Henry Walah agt. Israel L. Wyckoff et al. Ordered that purchaser complete his purchase. In the matter of the application of the Mayor, & of New-York. Order pursuant to report of Referes. UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE-FER 1. Before Judge BETTS. THE FRENCH EMBEZZLERS-WARRANT OF EXTRADITION. In the matter of the application of the French Government, for the Extradition of Charles Carpentier, Louis Grelet and Auguste Parrot, charged with crime of forgery and other crimes. We stated several days ago that & warrant, preparatory to trying the question of extradition in the case of Charles Carpentier and the other alleged embezzlera of the funds of the great northern railway of France, had been received from Washington. It was founded upon the following alli davit or Count de Montholon, Consul General of France: Charles De Montholon, Consul General of France. residing in the City of New York, being duly sworn, doth depose and say that by the annexed documents, some I which be has received efficially from France, it appears that Charles Carpentier, Louis Grelet and Auguste Parot are charged with the commission in France of the crime of taux (forgery), and with the commission of the crime interior fraction (burgiary), and with the commission of the crime val" (theft), to the Va of upwards of a million of dollars, the two latter crimes being of that class of crimes is cluded under the French law in the words "vol" qualifié crime," specified in the said additional article, all committed in France, the acts by which said crimes are charged to have been committed being mentioned in the said annexed documents, and to which the deponent refers. That the deponent verify believes that the said charges are true, therefore make con plaint a cordingly He further says that he is informed, and believes, that the said Carries Carpentier, Louis Grelet and Auguste Parot are now in the City of New York, and are fugitives from justice. He, therefore, applies for their surrender according to law and to the trea'y now existing between France and the United States, that justice may be done in the premises. CH. DE MONTHOLON. Subscribed and sworn to this 5th day of Februar, 1257, before 8 U. Com't. W. MORTON, G. The warrant requires the Marshal to bring the abovenamed parties before a duly empowered Commissioner, to the end that the evidence of their criminality may be heard, and, if deemed sufficient, certified to the President, by whom & warrant of extradition for their surrender may be issued. The warrant was issued by Commissioner Betts and the parties brought before him this morning. Nothing, bowever, was done, and the case stands adjourned to Wednesday next at 10 a. m. COURT CALENDAR-THIS DAY. COMMON PLEAS-Trial Term-Part I -Nos. 378 to 391, inclusive. Part IL-Nos. V, 272, 341, 270, 374, 3, 23, 392. 593, 594, 395, 396, 401 SUPERIOR COURT.-Nos. 584, 239, 204, 230, 755, 114, 568, 796, 304, $08, 309, 810, 814, 55, 774, 781, 548, 184, 538, 471, 758, 271, 780, 499. SUPREME COURT CIRCUIT.-No. 529, 421, 637, 828, 621 159, 206, 794, 1000, 564, 655, 666, 657, 650, 660, 662, 663, 665, 667. 669. U.S DISTRICT COURT.-Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 45, 55,

2. March 10, 1857 New-York Daily Tribune New York, NY
Article from New-York Daily Tribune, March 10, 1857

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

LAW INTELLIGENCE. SUPREME COURT-SPECIAL TERM-MARCH Before Judges MITCHELL, ROOSEVELT and DAVIES. THE CREDITORS OF THE EMPIRE CITY BANK NOT REMEDILESS. In the matter of the Empire City Bank. Some time ago on order granted by the Supreme Court, appointing Stephen Cambreling referee to ap portion the debte of the Empire City Bank among the stockholders, 80 that the amount yet due on those their debta might be collected of them in proportion to that respective shares of stock. The statute provides bank, such apportionment, in the case of so insolvent which shall be made within & certain specified time, is also be extended for ninety days. The Court may authorized, in case of a pending litigation, to suspend the In apportionment this case two for suspensions one year. for six months having been made, and the timefor the referee's report having Jon. been extended the specified period of ninety days. ethan Purdy, Isaac O. Barker and other stockholders statute on the ground that all power under the writ of moved, was exhausted, for an order in the nature further of a restraining the referee from proceedings prohibition, to apportion the debt among the stockholders. deDavies at Special Term in January 13st, livered Judge an opinion which was published in THE TRIBURE at the time, granting a perpetual stay of proceed He regarded the naming of the time within which inge the apportionment was to be made, not 88 directory, but as & limitation of authority, which mitation had in his opinion, been transcended in the present instance The order to this effect was granted on the 17th of January. On the 13th of February, Judge Peabody, on the application of John Orser late Sheriff, and other cred itors, made an order requiring the receiver to appeal to the General Term, and 8 notice to that effect was served upon the respondent. The cause coming on to be heard last week, the Court unanimously entered an order reversing the judgmeat at Special Term, in conseque nce whereof the referee will now go on to complete the aop rtionment among the tockholders. No written opinion was delivered. Theterm of ninety days expires this week, we understand. John M. Mason for the United States Trust Commany, Receiver; Harrison, Burrall & Waring and John E Burrill. for John Orser and others, creditors of the Bank, J. W. appeilants. Edmonds and J. D. Sherwood for respondents. SPECIAL TERM.-Before Judge DAVIES. THE JERSEY PIRATES. The five river-thieves, whose arrest we recently chronicled, were this morning brought ap on 8 writ of certiorari from Justice Connolly, before whom the proceedings are pending. The prisoners were discharg. ed, but were immediately rearrested in compliance with a requisition from the Governor of New-Jersey. A second writ of habeas corpus was at once sued out, returnable before, Recorder Smith, on Wednesday. HABEAS CORPUS-FRANCIS AND MARY CAN'T LIVE TOGETHER Francis and Mary Kavanagh were married five years ago. They have been separated four several times each accusing the other of a violent temper. Francis took their young child with him into the country, the last time that they parted company, which was year ago, and to punish Mary' R misconduct, refused to let her BEB it for some time. Having lost her patience at length, she sued out a writ of habeas corpus in obedience to which her lord and master appeared in Court this morning. He was alone, however, not deeming it prudent for 8 girl of only two and half years of age to come out in such a driving -storm. Both parties told the story of their married life, from which it appeared that incompatibility of temper had been the rock on which their h uppiness had split. Judge Davies ordered that the father keep the child, who appeared to be in good and capable h ands, on condition that he allow the mother to visit it once a week and pay her a stated sum weekly from his wages. An order to that effect was entered, in the face of Francis protests that it would he taking half his wages, and Mary's tearful remonstrances against being robbed of her little girl. Wm. D. Sallabury et al. agt. Martin McDonald. Motion to vacate order of arrest denied with costs. Patrick McCafferty agt. Hugh McCabe et al. Defendant entitled to $5 costs as for proceedings be. fore notice of trial. Thomas White agt. Washington T. Romaine. Motion to vacate judgment granted without costs. Before Judge ROOSEVELT. CONSIDERATION OF NOTE-EXCEPTION TO CHARGE TO THE JURY MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL John Rye agt. Luke Harrington, ROOSEVELT J -The defendant Harrington is sued M maker of promissory note. In his answer sets up two defenses: 1st, He denies that he made the note for valuable consideration; 2d says in this he shows what he means by consideration- -that the note was made for the purpose of being deposited with the plaintiff temporarily, until Searle (the payee and indorser), who had become indebted to the untiff for goods sold, should and deliver three other notes, which plaintiff had agreed to accept in its stead, as payment for the goods which three notes. he says, Searle acc ordingly did procure and tender to the plaintiff, who refused to accept them and deliver up defendant's note, and that Searle still holds those three notes subject to plaintiff order; and he, the defendant, therefore insists that the plaintiff has no right to the note sued OD, and has given no consideration for the same. As this answer is under oath, the law requires that, like any other sworn statement, it should be 80 construed 83 to make all its parts, If possible, harmonize with and not contradict each other When, therefore, in the first branch of the answer, the defendant says he made the note without onsideration, he must be unde stood as meaning that in his view of the law, the matter, as sol sequently explained by him, was no consideration. a The Judge at the trial, however, took and think correctly, different .ew of the law and R3 no evidence was offered to support the averment that the three substi uted notes were ever procured or tendered, the whole ense failed, and there was no alternative but verdict for the plaintiff The judgment rests on two propositions, namely, that the first brancl of the answer, interpreted by the whole, de fense in law and that the second branch if sufficient defense in law, is not sustained by the proofs offered at the trial. Motion for new trial denied with costs. I have examined this case as if it were regularly before me. It proper, however, to add that the practice not perfectly clear. As to the unfitness of single Judge sitting in review upon the rulings of another single Judge of the same Court, there can be no doubt. The Supe rior Court in 1851, to prevent such an occurrence, provided, by an express rule. that o allezed errors of law, in the trial before the jury, would be considered at Special Term, that is by single Judge, "unless by the ex press direction of the Justice before whom the cause was tried And in the very next year. when the Legislature had the Code under consideration, an amendment was introduced seemingly to give greater effect to the suggestion of the Superior Court. Prior to that time motions for new trials on exceptions were required in the first instance to be heard and decided at "a Special Term.' unless the Judge trying the cause should send the case directly to the General Term. But by the amendment of 1852, it is declared that such motions "mnst in the first "instance be heard and decided at the Circuit or Special Term, "unless &c.-Code,fl 265. Why WAS this change from the in definite to the definite article. unless to prevent "an appeal from one Judge another in the same Court, proceeding which as the Saperior Court had very justly observed, in Handford, 701, "should never be permitted where it can be "avoided." UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-MARCH 9.-Before Judge BETTS The Bark White Squall, John J. Boyd, &c., respondents, agt. John et al. Gardner This was a motion on the part of the respondents to stay execution issued by the libelants on the decree rendered in their favor Jan. 5, 1857. An appeal was taken thereto on the 15th of January, pursuant to the standing rules of this Court. The libelants contend that the appeal was irregular and void. Held That the rules this Court in respect to appeals are not in con ravention of the practice presented by the 22d 23d and 24th sections of the Judiciary Act the Act of Congress February, 1803, section Stat. at Large, 244). But if they were so, they have since been affirmed and readered the law of practice In the case by rule 46 of the Supreme Court, estab. lisbed by authority of the Act of Congress of August 23, 1842, section (5 Stat. at Large, 518). That if the decision of the Circuit Court in this district, in the case of Griffin ag: Hayford, rendered in September, 1853, scinds or varies the rule of that Court in relation to the practice on appeals, it does not control proceedings in the Dis rict Court antecedent to the vesting of the appeal in the Circuit Court it devolves upon the Court to determine whether it is brought there in conformity to law, and to receive oz reject it accordingly. The motion to stay the execution issued by the libelants is granted the respondents baving duly entered their appeal in this Court before the process was sued out. Ordered accordingly. E. Seymour for libelant; Bernard & Williams for respodent. KINGS COUNTY COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER MARCH SCHOONMAKER. Before Judge STRONG, Justices EMMONS and

3. March 17, 1857 New-York Daily Tribune New York, NY
Article from New-York Daily Tribune, March 17, 1857

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

Brady, for plaintiff; M. Por'er and Charles O'Conor, defendants. # THE EMPIRE CITY BANK. Stepben Cambreling, the referee, appointed by the Court to apportion the unpaid debts and liabilities of the Empire City Bank among the stockholders, has presented and filed his report. The hearing of the motion for its confirmation is set down for the 30th of March. Henry R. Cunningham, Receiver, agt. Wm. D. Whiting et al. Judgment that the judgment is no lien, and that plaintiff pay defendants' costs. GENERAL TERM - Before Judges MITCHELL, ROOSEVELT and DAVIES. NO RECIEVER OF THE TRANSIT COMPANY. Patton agt. the Accessory Transit Company. Order appealed from revereed. Motion for receiver denied. DECISIONS. Ely agt. Boeram. Demarrer to complaint. Judgment at Special Term reversed, with costs. Defendant to have 20 days to amend complaint. Watson agt. King. Judgment fer plaintiff affirmed with coste. Bibey agt. the Mayor of New-York. Certlorari denied. Dolan agt. Arnold. Order at Special Term granting a new trial affirmed. Costs to abide event. Tieza agt. Marcus. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed, with costs. Banke agt. Sparks. Jadgment for plaintiff affirmed, with costs.

4. September 15, 1857 New-York Daily Tribune New York, NY
Article from New-York Daily Tribune, September 15, 1857

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

bounced that decisions would be rendered on Wednes. day. Hereafter the General Term will be opened at 10 # THE LAST RAILROAD WAR. SUPREME COURT-SPECIAL TERM-SEPT. 11-Before Hon. Justice DAVIES. INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE LINE RAILROAD CONTINUED. The New-York and Erie Railroad Company agt. The Buffalo and State Line Railroad Company. Motion to dissolve injunction. On the 15th of April, 1851, the parties to this cause entered into a written agreement in reference to the running of their respec- tive roads. The defendants are the owners of a road running from Buffalo to the State line, connecting with plaintiffs' road at Dunkirk and with that of the New York Central Railroad Company at Buffalo. By this agreement the defendants contracted to operate their road impartially as against the interests of the plain- tiffs and the Central Line of Railroads, and to show no favor and grant no facilities to either to the injury of the other. That there should be a uniform rate of fare and freight per mile on the Buffalo and State Line Railroad. The agreement contains other provisions not necessary to mention. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have violated the agreement in the particular quoted, in that they allow the holders of tickets sold west of said State Line, with coupons at- tached, for the New York Central Road, to go over their road, by virtue of said coupons, without demanding the payment of fare, but at the same time refuse the like facility and transit to passengers holding like tickets, but having cou- pons which designate the plaintiffs' road as the one to be passed over, and of such latter passengers demand aud exact the pay- ment of fare, and refuse them passage over its road unless the same be paid. That the defendants charge and exact, for and from freight and passengers, having come over the plaintiffs' road, and in- tending to pass over the same, a much higher rate of fare and freight per mile for the passage and transportation over so much of the defendants' road as is that of Dunkirk, than the de- fendants demand per mile of and for passengers and freight, taken over the same part of its road, which have come or are designed to go over or upon the Central Railroad. The defendants admit that, since the 19th of June last, they have been guilty of the violation of the agreement in the par- ticular above mentioned, but deny that the same has been done through any partiality for the Central Railroad. They aver that it has been done in consequence of the acts of the plaintiffs in reducing their fare from Dunkirk to New York. J. O. Putnam, for defendants; D. B. Eaton, for plaintiffs. DAVIES J.-I see nothing, ultra vires, in the particulars of the agreement above quoted. The engagement to run the road of defendants impartially, and to show no favor or grant no facili- ties to the Central Line to the injury of the plaintiffs, is certain- ly not ultra vires. The defendants by this have agreed to per- form a legal obligation, and the performance of which the plain- tiffs might have enforced, even if no agreement had been en- tered into between the parties. By an act of the Legislature of this State, passed in May, 1847, (Laws of 1847, ch. 222,) it is declared that every Railroad Company, whose railroad shall con nect with or be intersected by two or more other railroads, which are competing lines for the business of such railroad, shall fairly and impartially grant and afford to the proprietors of each equal terms of accommodation, privileges, franchises, and facilities in the transportation of cars, passengers, baggage and freight over and upon their railroad, and over and upon such connecting and intersecting railroads; and shall, also, grant and afford to each of said connecting roads equal facilities in the interchange and use of passenger, baggage and freight, and other cars, as may be necessary. And, also, in furnishing passage- tickets to passengers who may have come over, or may wish to go over, either of such connecting or intersecting railroads. The defendants' road being intersected by the plaintiffs' and the Central Line Road, each competing lines for the business to and from their road, in entering into this agreement but as- sumed obligations which the law had already imposed. They were required by the statute above quoted to run the road fairly and impartially between the two competing lines. Facilities and privileges granted to one competing road were to be enjoyed by the other, and no discrimination was to be made which should operate favorably to one and prejudicial to the other. This agreement, therefore, thus to do cannot be regarded as ultra vires. The law required them thus to act, apprized of their agreement to obey its injunctions, and this Court is bound to see that the mandate of the law and the stipulations of the defendant in conformity therewith are fulfilled. Judge Selden, in the case of Curtiss and others vs. Leavitt, Receiver of the North American Trust and Banking Company, and others, in his opinion, delivered by him in the Court of Appeals, says: "But it is not ultra vires for a corporation to be honest, or to do, or promise to do, that which justice demands." The 219th section of the Code authorizes an injunction to is- sue when it shall appear from the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and that such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of some act the com- mission or continuance of which during the litigation would produce injury to the plaintiff. It is very apparent to my mind, from the facts before me, that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief demanded, which is an observance and compliance on the part of the defendants with the terms of their agreement, and that the continuance of their admitted violation of it, during the litigation, will produce not only injury, but great and serious injury to the plaintiffs. In this case it is peculiarly proper that the injunction should be continued, it only requiring the defendants to do what is re- quired of them by law, and what they have solemnly agreed to do, and the motion to dissolve it is denied, with $16 costs. DECISIONS. Before Judge PEABODY. # THE LOWBER CASE. John P. Treadwell, &c. agt. Jolm M. Lowber. Motion to set aside attachment denied, with $10 costs. This was order of the attachment granted against the defendant's property. The motion to vacate the attachment was argued at length last week. # CLAIM FOR $100,000 HEAD MONEY." The Commissioners of Emigration agt. the ship New Orleans. This was an application made by the Commissioners of Emigration, through their Vice-President, Mr. Crabtree, for a warrant directing the Sheriff to seize the ship New Orleans to answer a lien against her, created by the alleged violation of a statute requiring the master to report to the Mayor of New- York in regard to the number of passengers landed. By the statute, the owner or consignee of the ship is required to ex- ecute to the people of the State a several bond for each alien passenger, in $300, conditioned to indemnify and save harmless the Commissioners of Emigration, &c., from any cost incarred for the support of the persons named, &c., under a penalty of $500. It is alleged that in the present case the requirements of the statute were not complied with, and as the vessel had 200 passengers, the Commissioners of Emigration claim that they are creditors to the amount of $100,000. The Judge granted the application. Wm. O'Brien agt. Ebenezer Seely.-Motion denied, with costs. Johann S. Kocher agt. Nanette Kocher, &c.- Judgment of divorce granted. Cornelius H. De Lameter agt. Wm. H. Woodruff et al.--The motion as to the demurrer being frivolous must be granted, unless the defendants forthwith file an affidavit with merits, and, within five days, answer; and if they do, the mo- tion is denied; no costs to either party. Calvin B. Dibble and Jonathan B. Bruce agt. Henry B. Rosen et al-The attachment should be set aside, without costs, on defendants stipulating not to bring an action for damage sustained. John La Farge agt. Jas. W. Otis et al. Motion granted, subject to the opinion of the Judge at Circuit as to length of time likely to be required for trial. In the matter of the petition of Christiana John and Wm. John, for the sale of real estate. Report of referee confirmed, and order pursuant to report. Before Judge MITCHELL. In the matter of the Empire City Bank The re- port of the referee will be confirmed, except where it is other- wise denied in the opinion. SUPERIOR COURT-GEKERAL TERM-Sept. 14.-Before Judges DUER, BOSWORTH and SLOSSON. # THE CASE OF JOHN THOMPSON. Morse Burtis and Edward S. Dow agt. John Thomp- son. This, which was the case of the attachment against Mr. John Thompson, was argued at length. Decision reserved.

5. November 17, 1858 New Orleans Daily Crescent New Orleans, LA
Article from New Orleans Daily Crescent, November 17, 1858

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

New Orleans Ittoney Market. CRESCENT OFFICE, No. 70 Camp street, Tuesday Evening, November 16, 1858. The general money market was exceedingly quiet. The sales of paper on the street were at 7 @ 8 per cent. for March and April maturities. The offerings in bank were light, with some of the banks up to their income, with others not one-half. Specie continues to flow in, and unless there is an advance in sight funds on New York, attended with an enlarged demand, two or three of our inks will have to order their large balances back in The New York market, in regard to foreign exchange, sympathises with ours, or perhaps ours sympathises with that. It is immaterial how the case stands, as gold has got to come hither to move our large receipts of produce, or rather to invest in exchange-the proceeds of said exchange moving the produce. It would not be a very profitable or a paying business for an English spinner or a New England manufacturer wanting, say one thousand bales of cotton at a specified price, to send fifty or sixty thousand dollars in gold, with the orders and the price limited. So it is the heighth of folly for planters and growers of cotton to say if Mr. Bull or Mr. Yankee wants my cotton, let them bring the gold and they can have it at such and such prices and so on. This will all do very well for a confab and talk. The gigantic business of this country must be conducted by exchange, and the balance of trade, or purchases of our staple, must be settled in coin, for which purposes only a few millions of gold are necessary. We learn that the Governor of Arkansas, in his late message, recommends the suppression of all bank notes under fifty dollars. The intercourse between Arkansas and New Orleans is of consid rable importance, and the cotton raised in Arkansas forms one of the links of the intercourse, but Governor Conway need not expect that any law passed by the Legislature of his State will prevent a citizen of Arkansas from refusing 8 bank note of five, ten or twenty dollars. Does any one suppose that the proprietor of & wood-yard, on the banks of the Mississippi, now within the jurisdiction of Arkansas, will refuse from & steamboat the notes of either of the banks of Louisiana, be they for five or five hundred dollars. Does the member of the Legislature of Mississippi, who introduced a bill last week to suppress bank notes under twenty dollars from being circulated, suppose that any citizen of Mississippi will refuse the bank notes of this city for anything he may have for sale. Such laws as these are all fudge and fiddlesticks. Public opinion everywhere, it is ad: mitted, is against the issue of notes under five dollars, and those who assert that the panic and crisis of 1857 was brought about by the banks issuing notes under twenty dollars, know no more about finance and trade than the highly estimable gentleman who is represented to have his locality in Queen Luna's dominions. It is suggested that the members of the Legislatures of Mississippi and Arkansas will not commit themselves to such legislative foll, Does any one believe that the citizens of Bay St. Louis, Pass Christian, Mississippi City and Biloxi will refuse to receive a bank note under twenty dollars of the banks of New Orleans when tendered, or can any legislative enactment prevent the Jackson Railroad from receiving from the citizens of Louisisiana & bank note of live or ten dollars for passage or freight. We trust our neighbors of Mississippi will not make themselves ridiculous. The weather cleared off bright to-day, though tinged with something of a Lapland feeling. Business moved on quietly, though not brisk it was not dull. The Exchange market had the same downward tendency we noticed yesterday. Telegraph advices from New York of last evening, the 15th inst., quote a further decline in Sterling ex. change. The best of bankers' bills were offering at 109. This information was expected from the tenor of the private letters. of the 10th inst., which quoted 1091/2 @ 1091/4, with & heavy market. The best of francs were sold at 5.171/2 @ 5.18% These accounts had, however, no great influence on our market, only to strengthen the position of buyers, who offered 106 @ 106½ for bills with documents, and clear bills at 1073/4 @ 107%. There were, however, some sales of bills of lading drafts under a great margin, at 107. The demand for remittance was slack. We quote 107% @ 10814, according to sums wanted. In francs there were some sales at 5.27½ the range of the market being from 5.32½ @ 5.26% In Northern funds there was not much doing. The counter rate for checks was %. Some sales were made at % discount, and large sums ouiside were sold at ½ and 1 discount. Short sight 1½ @ 1½ discount ; sixty days sight from 17/8 to 2, 2½, 2½ @ 23/2 discount. The supply free, and the market closing altogether in favor of buyers. There was very little done in Stocks. We only heard of the sale of 100 shares Gas Company at 130, and 170 shares of Jackson Railroad, the price of which will be known to-morrow. Suppose & bank in Louisiana had failed, became bankrupted during the crisis of 1857, like the great Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, the Empire City Bank, Eighth Avenue Bank, Island City Bank and Bowery Bank, located in the great metropolis, New York the Bank of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, with the hundreds of other banks which failed, suspended, and never have resumed, or will never resume, would we in New Orleans have heard the last of it for ten or twenty years at least? We trow not. We find, however, that bad bank failures are not confined to this side of the Atlantic, as is well known by the bankruptcy of the Borough Bank of Liverpool, and other banks in England. But we are somewhat taken aback at the looseness and wantonness of the management of the Western Bank of Glasgow. which failed in 1857. Scotch banking has