New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-11-26
Orleans gepabIieat1.
JOURNAL OF the UNITED STATES
i JOURNAL or THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
SCAL INTELLIGENCE.


The Masters and Wardens of the
n New Orleans VS.. Robert W. Foster,
npoon d Halsey, George A. Fosdick,
4 4 Nickerson, Charles w. Fox, Hsr-
6Idwell, Arthur G. Waugh, ct al. The
ias sued out an injunction against
lsuts to restrain them from making
sing to be made any surveys of dam
ooods coming on board vessels, AID
,erclsiDg enJ functions or doing any
Inch the law prescribes shall be Gone
|lutiffs in their official capacity, and
sny manner interfering with or mo,
daintiffs in the discharge OF their
duties.
.hffs likewise claim to recover of de-
.ts $50, 900 damages for the acts by
done in violation of the rights of
kas.
Injunction issued as prayed for, but
.solyed upon the ex parte motion OF
ssnts. Thereupon plaintiffs counsel
rule to rescind the order and rein
Hin Injunction. Upon this point the
tpc opinion of the Judge was rendered
dsy:
! question:" says Judge Cooley, in his
IN for Judgment, ITO be decided lie,
Aer the Injunction obtained in this
one which may be get aside on
selendant giving bond and securi-
provided by law! (307, c. P.)
Iplalntiffs represent that they are
Val wardens of the port of New
Ia and as such entitled exclusively to
Fht of performing the duties of such
ice, aud of receiving the fees and
snents attached thereto. They allege
btion Of these rights by defendants,
retend to perform the duties of the
4 f wardens OF the port aforesaid, and
Il the fees therefor. The prayer is for
ssstoration as port wsrdens exclusively
"a to perform the duties and receive
&es of said Office, enthusiastically
4 view to greater protection-for an in
bu restraining defendants from acting
and receiving fees. The injunc ion or
atiOn of defendants was set aside upon
living bond and security in the sum
thousand five hundred dollars. The
tier plaintiff seeks to set aside. am
"a that the order setting aside the in.
Aavas unadvisedly issued. 1t is true
rEe 307, Code of Practice, allows
rNie of injunctioDs whenever the
gsbe inflicted thereby is not irrepara-
!, III 1t is also true that u claim in dam
M always be Unidentified by dollars
HITS. The claim of the plaintiff is
In one of dollars and cents, it is
hon of an office, and the honor
be- an officer OF the Government Is
Hch in theory an ingredient of the
IS the pecuniary results of the posi-.
That part OF the claim can not be
ID by;i a bond. (Sec. 80, 18th, $40.
dependent Of this-though it may be
bat q money claim can be Unidentified
honey bond, yet that must be under.
in reference to those claims whose
Elt is fixed and certain. These can be
sted by a bond for an amount over
bove the sum claimed. But when the
BIT Of the claim consists of the fees
officer, dependent for this amount
circumstances beyond the control
/ officer, upon the necessities of
commerce of a port like New
lls, for example, which are neces-
impossible Of appreciation before.
the injury which may result to the
5f in Injunction is as inevitable and
liable from the uncertainty of guam
4 in such cases from the uncertainty
klity. A bond of $500, such as was
! ID in this case, is the only security
llaiutitfs for the damage which may
scted upon them. If the fees collect
defendant should amount to $1,000,
plaintiff decreed entitled to them,
security would they have as good
|e first Injunction! In the case
|Dnes vs.. First Municipality, SINH
IL facts to the present, the eX.
snoant of the injury which would be
mel by plaintiffs was alleged at three
10 per day, as the time and the lease
80 stated. Then the court considered
pccerding to his own showing, the
VI could not bring injury to a greater
than sum fixed on a bond bearing
hOunt-the injury to be apprehended
fd not TO be irreparable. (See A.
III. For these reasons, it is ordered
be order issued on the -, dissolying
junction. be set aside as unadvisedly
and that said injunction be re-