The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-06-18

ated BY the act to be an invasion OF the private ght
Of property unWarranted by the constitution-yet
daas nh follow that an right and that the legisla
tre the State the governor and the Judges OF the 81
nrene court were all wrong this constitutional ques
ton of the act of March 18TH ls52but the presumI
ton is that my imperfect information or defective III
Outstanding has led nv mind to different and
Gus conclusion NY duty, however. as judge of an in
feior court is plain and that Is to take the decision
of our supreme court the true expositons both {
our constitution and statutes. II dangerous power
have been conferred the legislative department
the government or if unwise in urious laws hay
been enacted the people of the State have full an
complete remedy in therown hands. The constitution
of the State as well the acts Of the legislature,
subject alike to be abrogated amended And for tn
Judge of inferior district court to disregard the de
cisons of the supreme court made after argument re
search and mature elaboration, and to disregard th
rights of parties tgan before him. within the prnei
pies of such decisions, and to set up his individ
ual opinion superior to all Others and the only
true and correct Interpretation of the constitution
laws of the State: would be, in my Judgment strong
evidence of bigotted imbecity, and almost crimina
refusal to discharge official duties. ..... ....
| Upon this OCCASION as shall on all others of like
nature, take the deliberate and positive decisions Of
our supreme court as my guide in the adjudication Of
and shall decide the act the of March 18th
1852, to be constitutional, valid and binding upon
the landowners of the parish of Caddo. 80 ~
As the ordinance of the police jury, Of the 9th OF
the act of March 18th, 1852; as this ordinance was
submitted to the authorised voters for their approval
and ratification, at an election specially held for that
purpose; and due legal notice previously Civ
Ell of the election, and the ordinance was ratified
and approved by majority of the legal voters at said
election and the result legally ascerained and
proclaimed and the president of the police Jury
did, about the 18th day Of April 1853 actually
subscribe to the stock of the Fcksburg, Shreveport
and Texas Railroad Company four thousand shares
CHI T ,oft h. AZ
the plaintiffs, with the other landowners of the parish
Of Caddo, at said time became legally liable to pay
to the Vieksburg, Shreveport and Texas Railroad Co.
an annual tax of two per cent their landed estate
IN the parish for five years, if that rate of taxation
should be necessary to pay the amount of subscription
to the stock OF said company And am further of
opinion that the rights of the railroad company to de-
mand the payment of the subscriptions were vested
and the liabilities of the landowners to pay it, were
finally created and fixed, on the day THE 18th Of
April the president Of the police Jury William Ter
rel actually subscribed to the stock of the company
four thousand shares, at $25 per share. This sub
serpton was the proissory note or obligation in wr
ting OF the landowners of the parshs to pay the rail
road company the amount subscribed To be more
explicit, am of opinion that, on the 18th day April
1888, there was perfect and valid contract consum
mated between the company and the landowners ofthe
parish through the insrtumentaty of the police jury
and that on that day the company acquired the right
to demand the payment of the amount subscribed and
that the landowners incurred the liability to paw it.
or at least pay tax of two per cent on their landed
estate IN the parish if that rate of taxation should be
necessary for the purpose
from this conclusion it legally results that neither
party to the contract could after that date annul or
recede from the obligations which it imposed without
The consent OF the other Hence it will be useless TO
notice the of the police Jury de-
slaring their former proceedings in relation to the rail
cad tax to be null and void
Inc second question in this case, that shall con-
;lder whether the notice Of the
ued by the Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas Rail-
DAD Co. for amount ofhe subscription to the stock
II the company, had right to confess Judgment in
avor OF the plaintiffs in Shat action
The facts on this point are: That the police iurv
allied refused to pay the first instalment OF 500 GOD
hat became due on the subscr pon to the stock of the
ompany and also failed and refused to cause the tax
two per cent levied the landed estate of the "a
ISL by the ordinance Of 18th of October 1852 to be
objected for that purpose, Whaeupon the company
astituted suit for the whole amount Of the subscrip
on; and the police jury at called meeting confessed
Judgment i'll favor OF the company FOR the whole I
mount OF the subscription payable in five equal an
ual intervals of S2U0D0 each At the called meeting
the police jury all the members were not present
Or had all of them been personally notified attend
he evidence shows that of the seven members of the
5llce jury four Of them were in favor of conessing the
alignment, and that the other three opposed toi
hat two of the members opposed to- and in favor
contessing the judgment absent from the meet Il
g when the Judgment confessed b
The people of the parish constitute political coro
ton, and represented and bound by the acts of
police jury within the limits OF the powers confer Of
them by the acts of the legislature The notice
y, in representing the people of the parish are i'm fe
sted with various powers; among them the right to
and be sued to contract debts for certain purposes
to levy taxes tor their payment and by the act Of
arch l2th 1897 are specially authorised under GER or
detailed in the act to subscribe to be
stocks Of corporations undertaking works of inter
improvement. The stock subscribed is in the N
me of the police jury, representing the landowners tn
the parish and the law requires the company 70 I'M
the party with whom it had contracted for ri
aen or non-perormance of contract The police i,l ma
had the capacity to be sued and to stand in ind ty
h Tor the nonpayment of the subscription to the ca
OK OF the company; and know of no exceptions to
rule that a party to contract for the payment of
ney, who's capable of being sued and standing in Ia
igment, may, when sued confess the creditors de- ths
nd and consent to a judgment against himself IN
ne confession otJudgment by the presidentand d. 10
tors OF banking, railroad and other companies are ceI
avs valid and binding on the stockholders (the
sons represented in the absence of fraud and col low
ION; andl am unable to any legal reason WINS pal
and honest confession of judgment by the police rel
ola parish, should not be valid and binding on bar
persons represented by them. rea
ne landowners of the parish it is true constitute sar
part of the people ofthe parish but am of opin
that by the act OF March 18TH 1882 they are ere wit
into kind of quaseorporaton to be represented pie
the police jury, until the subscription of stock shall os
t'"t removal,
on OF the persons owning land nor the increase h
he number of the landowners of the parish affect IN
rights of the company, nor lessen the duties and
cations OF the police jury, of the persons by an
n represented. Notwifhs standing the change Of of
IONS, there is no change in the rights and obiea pal
growing out of the subscription to the stock of 5l
company. lars
he plaintiffs however contend that the meeting of
ponce jury, at which the Judgment was confessed wa:
an illegal one therefore the confession of abo
gment was without effect and void Tothis posi- the
cannot give my assent. / think The called meet be
OF the police jury at which the Judgment was con- the
sd' was lawfully convened, and that their action ,
warranted by law. Indeed, I doubt whether the Fra
ident of the police jury without the consent or rem
o1ty of majority of the members could not law He
have confessed the Judgment in favor of the COM gag
especially IN the absence of fraud error or I'M to
dealing therefore of opinion thattlre police l
had authority to confess the Judgment in favor Of IN
company. "a gate
ne third and last question shall consider in this inst
Is: Whether the defendant B. T Seoein has nate
orlty to collect the amount of taxes demanded of
plaintiffs The facts necessary to be stated on encs
point, are these: The police jury refused to pay tWis
lrst lnstaiment due the subscription to the ana
OF the company, before stated and also refus ad
cause the assessment of Ia per cent (by the or