4: - FEDERAL REPORTER.
tended by the mortgagor. The evidence shows that the property in-
cluded in the mortgages has been sold, pending this litigation, by con-
sent of all interested, and that it ·did not realize enough to pay the
amount secured by the first mortgage.
As complainants could only reach any surplus left after payment
of the prior lien, it follows that there is nothing left to be decreed to
complainants, and the bill therefore must be dismissed; and it is so
ordered.
BUN MUT. .l.NS. UO. 'U. BOARD OF JJIQUIDATION OF THE CITY OF NEW
Oiznmus}
(Circuit Oourt, E. D. Louisiana. May 14, 1885.)
1. Lnorsriurivm Powans.
Where there are two classes of creditors with already existing debts, a legis-
lative act could not, by transfer or appropriation of a debtor’s property, give to
one class a preference, to the exclusion of the otherclass, to such a degree as to
give to one class an immediate and annual source of payment, and postpone to
the other all payment for, possibly, a period of 40 years. See Succession of Tay-
lor, 10 La. Ann. 510; Milne v. Schmidt, 12 La. Ann. 553. lt is no more in the
· power of law makers than of debtors to edect an unequal distribution of the
debtor’s estate by making an application or transfer thereof among creditors al-
ready existing. Azehcfalaya Ua. v. Bean, 3 Rob. (La.) 415.
2. Muniemu. Bonus or rms Crrr or- N nw ORLEANS—ACTS or LA. No. 58 on
1882, AND No. 67 or 1884, Consrnumn.
Whatever provisions are contained in the act of 1882 subjecting any property
— or means of payment, which could be lawfully appropriated, to the payment of
the extended bonds or coupon certificates, having been assented to on the part
of the holders by accepting of the extension, is a contract which cannot be
varied by any change or substitution, no matter how minute, and will continue
· in its operation upon whatever has been so appropriated till the obligations
thereby secured shall have been fully paid. If the language in the act of 1882
did include the excess of the premium bond tax and the other property included
in the grant under the act of 1884, while it would be valid as a contract be-
tween the complainants, the holders of the new obligations, and the city, it
would be void so far as concerns the judgment creditors whose judgments are
for debts existing antecedent1y to the passage of the act of 1882, under which
. the complainants claim, up to the point of the said judgment creditors being
admitted to a proportionate or ratable share of such excess and other property.
In Chancery. On rule for an injunction.
Henry J. Leovy, E. D. White, and Eugene D. Sanders, for complain-
ant.
Henry O,. Miller, for defendant.
Bxnmncs, J. This matter is submitted upon a bill of complaint,
and affidavits and exhibits, on behalf of the complainants, and affi-
davits and documents on behalf of the respondents, upon an applica-
tion for an injunction. The complainants are holders of "extended
'Reported by Joseph P. Horner, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.