Case ID: la_125/html/0775-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROVOSTX, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(51 South. 845.)
    No. 17,997.
    VENTRESS et al. v. REEVES, President of Police Jury, et al.
    (March 14, 1910.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Animals (§ 50*) — Stock Law — Annulment-Right of Action — Plaintiffs—Interest— Sufeicie Ncy.
    Plaintiffs did not show sufficient interest to entitle them to maintain an action to annul a stock law adopted by the police jury of a parish for a certain ward therein, where they only alleged they were residents and taxpayers of the parish and that the stock law would damage them in a certain sum if not annulled, but did not allege how the law would injure them, or that they lived in the ward, or had property therein.
    • [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Animals, Dec. Dig. § 50.*]
    Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Webster; R. C. Drent, Judge.
    Action by Shelby Ventress and others against Joe A. Reeves, President of the Police Jury, and others. Prom a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Wimberly & Reeves, for appellants. W. R. Percy, for appellees.
   PROVOSTX, J.

Plaintiffs, 11 in number, seek to annul, on various grounds, a stock law adopted by the police jury of Webster parish for ward 4 of that parish. An exception of no cause of action was sustained, for the reason that the petitioners do not allege any actionable interest. Their only allegation of interest is that they are residents and property taxpayers of the parish, and that said ordinance “is greatly to the injury and detriment of petitioners, and, if not annulled, will damage them in the sum of $2,500.” They do not allege in what way the ordinance could possibly injure them. They do not even allege that they live in ward 4, or have any property interests in it. Before citizens can be allowed to invoke the aid of the courts for interfering with the management of the public business, they must show a more direct and immediate interest than this. State ex rel. Kuhlman v. Judge, 47 La. Ann. 53, 16 South. 776; State ex rel. Saizan v. Judge, 48 La. Ann. 1515, 21 South. 94.

Judgment affirmed.