Case ID: la-ann_2/html/0731-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Slidell, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Little et al. v. Commissioners of the Consolidated Association.
    Whether a decree, from which a suspensive -appeal is prayed for;bo a newr judgment? changing the legal rights of the parties as fixed by a 'former judgment, or be merely declaratory of the legal effect of the first judgment, is a question which cannot be determined on arule'to show cause why a mandamus should not be directed to the inferior court commanding it1-to allow an appeal; it can only be determined-when1 the case comes up onthe appeal.
    RULE to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued commanding the judge of the Fifth District Court of'New Orleans to állow a suspensive appeal. The manager's of the Consolidated Association of the Planters of Louisiana allege : That on the 1st of March last-a judgment'was rendered against them in the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, in favor of Jacob Little Sf Co., in the following words: “ It is ordered that the said Jacob Little Co. recover of the defendants, the Managers of the Consolidated Association of the Planters of Louisiana, the sum of $5,000, with legal interest from the 3d October, 1846, till paid and costs ; to be satisfied and paid by the said managers'in the course of administration of the affairs of the Consolidated Association of the Planters of Louisiana; and that said plaintiffs do .furnish satisfactory personal security according to art. 2258 of the Civil Code of Louisianna.” That from this judgment the petitioners took a devolutive appeal. That subsequently, on the 7th May following, the plaintiffs, Jacob Little S¡- Co., took a rule on petitioners to show cause why the bond filed by them should not be approved, .and petitioners should not allow-the judgment-to be-received in payment of any claims of said bank as provided by law; -whereupon a final judgment was rendered on the 27th of said month of May, ordering that the objections filed to the said rule be overruled, and that the bond filed by said plaintiffs be approved, and the defendants in said rule allow the said judgment to be received in payment of any of their claims, as provided by-law. Petitioners further show that considering said judgment might cause them an irreparable injury, they applied to the judge of the court for a suspensive appeal therefrom, but that the said judge declined granting said appeal.
    Wherefore they pray, that- a wx-it of mandamus .may issue, directed to the said judge, commanding him to grant said appeal.
    
      Labarre, for the rule.
    
      Buchanan, Judge of the Fifth Distinct Court,
    showed.cause against the rule.: That the petitionei's have never applied for a suspensive appeal from the judgment rendered on the 1st of Mai'ch: Thaton the ,7th of May the plaintiffs took a rule on the petitioners to show-cause why the bond filed should not be received, and why the latter should not receive the said judgment .in payment of any claim of said Association pro tanto, as provided bylaw: That subsequently to the rule taken by the petitioners in .the District Court on the 7th of May, they obtained a devolutive appeal from that judgment: That by an act of 26th March, 1842 (Sess. Acts, p. 454.), the legislature required the banks, in course of liquidation, to receive their obligations in payment of notes and obligations due to them : That the petitioners not having taken a suspensive appeal from the judgment of the 1st March, were bound to settle it in the course of liquidation, without delay: That the order made on the rule in the Disti-ict-Court-was a modification of the foi'm of execution of said judgment; and that Little et al. .are entitled to the benefit of it, as they would have been to an execution under an ordinary judgment; That to .allow the ¡mandamus to bo issued will be, in effect, to grant th® petitioners a suspensive appeal, to which they are not enfitled.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

The decree in this case is a final decree. Whether in reality it is a new decree, changing the legal rights of the parties as established by the first judgment in the cause, or whether it is merely declaratory of the legal effect of that judgment, is a question which we do not think we have a right to determine on a rule for a mandamus, and can only consider when the case cpmes before us on the appeal. We think the defendants entitled t.o a suspensive appeal, and the mandamus is therefore granted.

It is ordered that a peremptory mandamus issue in this case, commanding the Hon. A. M. Buchannan, judge of the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, to grant and sign an order for a suspensive appeal, as applied for by the defendants jn thi.s pas,e, 
      
       Bustis, C. J., absent.