US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Holders of liens against real estate sold under the Confiscation Act of July 17th, 1861, should not be permitted to intervene in any proceedings for the confiscation. Their liens will not, in any event, be divested.

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 forty-four lots and ten squares of ground in New Orleans, owned by Slidell, they respectively held liens against the said property. And they were permitted by the courts below to intervene for the protection of their claims. Those courts, however -- the district court first, and the circuit court affirming its action -- refused to let them take the proceeds of the sale.

On the different writs of error or appeals, the question was whether this action was right.

In these cases, which were several appendages to the case just above reported, and which came here on error or appeal from the District 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 forty-four lots and ten squares of ground in New Orleans, owned by Slidell, they respectively held liens against the said property. And they were permitted by the courts below to intervene for the protection of their claims. Those courts, however -- the district court first, and the circuit court affirming its action -- refused to let them take the proceeds of the sale.

On the different writs of error or appeals the question was whether this action was right. chanrobles.com-red

Page 87 U. S. 115