New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-07
Communicated
CONFLICT OF u q RISDICT1ON.

In the month of October, 1869, S. n. Bur-
bank, one of the Commissioners of the
Board of metropolitan Police, who had pre-
viously been appointed by the board treas
urer and fiscal agent OF the police depart
ment, obtained an injunction in the SIKH
District Court prohibiting the board from
interfering with him as treasurer, and en-
Joining them from electing another treas
urer. Previous to this proceeding suit had
been brought by Burbank against the State
Treasurer to compel him to pay over the
funds he had received from the city to pay
the police, and liquidate the Indebtedness
which was standing against the depart
ment. The Board of Police attempted
to intervene in this suit, which was
subsequently took an appeal to the
Supreme Court in this and several other
suits brought by holders of police warrants
against Burbank as Treasurer. All these
suits are still pending in the Supreme
Court. A few days ago suit was brought in
the Eighth District Court by the board
against Burbank, and writ OF Injunction
aud representation asked for and obtained
These Writs met the observation OF Judge
Cooley, of the sixth District Court, who at
once, considering them a violation of the
order of Injunction issued by him in Octo
Der, 1869, issued rule Ell p1'Oprld mOtu
against the Board of Police for contempt.
This rule was answered and tried yester-
| day, and resulted in the sentence of Lieu
| tenant Governor Dunn and Commissioners
Raynal, Isabelle and George to fine of the
sum of ninety five dollars each, and FIVE
days imprisonment. They at once made
application to the Eighth District Court,
and obtained writ OF habeas corpus, the
trial of which before<Judge Dibble resulted
in their discharge. The fine was, however,
paid. The apparent conflict of jurisdiction
between the two courts, the Sixth and the
Eighth, does not seem, when examined
closely, to have any real foundation.
Judge Cooley, we understand, claims that
he has jurisdiction over the case decided by
him last fall, as he had unquestiJnable
jurisdiction over the case at the time it
was brought, his jurisdiction continues IN
less he has been legally Invested thereof.
Havipg!decided that question, certainly none
but the Appellate Court can review or re-
verse that decision. The Eighth District
Court is totally without jurisdiction or
power to review a Judgment of the Sixth,
although he may believe it to be erroneous
or Illegal. Judge Dibbe, on the contrary,
claims that the act creating his court divests
all other District Courts of the parish Of
Orleans OF jurisdiction over cases Of injunc-
ton, etc., and vests the same exclusively in
the Eighth. This decision of Judge Dibb e's
may be right or it may be wrong, but as a
dec sion it may be said to be equal IN polnt
of authority, with that of Judge Cooley, Of
the Sixth but neither decision settles any
thing as to the real point at issue, which is
not one of conflict of jurisdiction, but one Of
the importance or authority to be attached
to the conflicting decisions of coordinate
courts.
1t occurs to US that inasmuch as the
opinions of at least two OF our district
judges differ widely on single question of
jurisdiction, that 1t is unsafe for iitigants,
in the first instance, to treat with impunity
the orders, DEGREES or judgments OF another
under the assumption or pretense that the
court is without or has been dives.ed of
jurisdiction. In the second place, it is I'M
wise on the part of courts to exercise Or
claim Jurisdiction or act upon it, while the
question remains an open one. This case
that we are now speaking of affords prac-
tical commentary on such procedure. If
it turns out that the Eighth District Court
has not the jurisdiction it claims, the con-
sequences to court and litigants would be
calamitous indeed. If on the contrary it is
correct. then no serious harm can result
from Withholding the exercise Of question
able power until case comes up before the
court of last resort in some proper manner,
and is decided settling these questions that
can not be settled by the inferior jurisdic
tons.