Case ID: la-ann_28/html/0902-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MoegaN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 6369.
    State ex rel. Winkelman vs. Judge of the Superior District Court.
    II the relator is to be injured, in the amount he avers, to wit: a sum exceeding: five hundred dollars, and the acts which he lears will be committed are illegal, it would seem that, upon his complying with the terms of the law, he would be entitled to an injunction.
    It has heretofore been held that where a rule has been taken to show cause why an injunction should not issue, and the judge passes upon that rule, his decision is subject to the revision of this court.
    APPLICATION for a writ of mandamus and prohibition against the judge of the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans.
    
      8. P. Smith & Tharp, for relator.
    
      Samuel P. Blanc, City Attorney, for respondent.
   MoegaN, J.

Relator instituted suit against the city and the Metropolitan police to enjoin them from interfering with him in the prosecution oí his business. He alleges that the damages which he will suffer from the action which he fears far exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars. The district judge ordered the defendant to show cause why the injunction should not issue. After hearing, the judge refused the writ. From this refusal of the judge to grant the injunction relator asked for a.suspen-sive appeal, which the district judge refused. He asks for a mandamus commanding the judge to grant the appeal.

If the relator is to be injured in the amount he avers he will be, and the acts which he fears will be committed are illegal, it would seem that, upon his complying with the terms of the law, he would be entitled to an injunction.

We have heretofore held that where a rule has been taken to show cause why an injunction should not issue, and the judge passes upon that rule, his decision is subject to our revision. Here there was a decision, and the amount in controversy exceeds five hundred dollars.

It is therefore ordered that the rule herein issued be made peremptory.