
    No. 13,122.
    State of Louisiana vs. United Debenture Company of Louisiana, Limited.
    ON APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Kiiiii, J-
    
    
      
      M. J. Gunningham, Attorney General, (F. E. Rainold and Stiffi and Madison of Counsel), for the State of Louisiana and August M. Benedict, Liquidator, Plaintiffs and Appellees.
    17. K. Horn and 17. II. Rogers for the Defendant and Appellant.
    Argued and submitted May 18, 1899.
    Opinion handed down June 22, 1899.
    Judgment amended and rehearing refused June 30, 1899.
   On the application for rehearing by Watkins, J.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Blanchard, J.

Eor the reasons assigned in the opinion of the court in the case of the State of Louisiana vs. The Louisiana Debenture Company, Limited, No. 13,105 on the docket of the court, and in the case of the State of Louisiana ys. The New Orleans Debenture Company, Limited, No. 13,11G on the docket of the court — this day decided — -it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from, in so far as the same decrees the nullity and forfeiture of defendant’s charter, be affirmed, and that the said judgment, in so fgr as it appoints a receiver or liquidator be reversed, reserving to the State of Louisiana and all other parties in interest all rights under the law relative to the appointment of a receiver or liquidator to take charge of, liquidate and settle the affairs of said corporation — costs of both ■courts to be borne by defendant.

Monroe, J., recused.

On Application for a Rehearing.

Watkins, J.

In this case, on the 22nd of June, 1S99, as relates to the appointment of a receiver or liquidator, a decree of the court was handed down, which in part, read as follows, viz:

“That the said judgment, in so far as it appoints a receiver or li•quidator, be reversed,'reserving to the State of Louisiana and all other parties in interest all rights under the law relative to the appointment ■of a receiver or liquidator.”

The attorney general and associate counsel have filed an application for rehearing and so 'have counsel for defendants.

The State avers tliat the public interest and particularly the interest of the debenture holders demand a settlement of the question as relates to the appointment oí a receiver or of a liquidator; and it is asked that the liquidator appointed by the Governor be recognized.

These cases were argued la-te -in the session. The argument was directed to the question of the legality vel non of the charter under which the respective companies carried on business.

The illegality of the charter was decreed. The court considered that, as to liquidator or receiver vel non contradictorily with parties in interest, the question can be considered in the District Court, to which the judgment- is remanded for execution.

The whole question as to the appointment of liquidator or receiver is left at large and to be considered as an original question. Whether the appointment of liquidator lies with the Governor, or of receiver with the court, or the parties in interest, we do not determine. It is left as an open question.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed except as specifically reversed or amended.

Rehearings refused.

Monroe, J., takes no part.  