New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-01
SUPREME CoURr DECISIONS.



ION rendered by Associate Justice Howe
After reviewing the facts involved in tht
application for the mandamus, the cour
says:
The REALTORS apply for a mandamus t.
compel the respondent TO proceed with ant
try Its suit against the Chattanooga HALL
road, and the argument OF counsel has pre-
sented two questions for decision.
First. of the constitutionality of the act o
March 16, 1870, entitled IAN act to establish
an additional district court Ithe Eighth.Dis
trict CourD for the parish OF Orleans, to
define the jurisdiction thereof and to re-
organize and determine the jurisdiction oi
the existing seven district courts for the
parish of Orieans;" and, second, of the effect
OF this act, if valid, upon the suit instituted
by relator against the Chattanooga Railroad
Company.
l. There is nothing in the nature OF
things which makes it improper for the
Legis lature to control the organization and
jurisdiction Of the district courts Of this
parish.
Such power has been freely exercised in
Louisiana under the constitutions Of 1892,
lS45, 1852 ard 1864. A similar authority has
generally been vested III the Legislature OF
our sister States, and has always been exer-
cised by Congress in reference to tribunals
inferior to the Supreme Court OF the United
/; States.
Such a control has never, so far as we are
| advised. been deemed OF nature dangerous
| to public liberty or private right, but, on the
| contrary, may in many instances be used to
farther both; and especially, by proper regu-
| latlon, to prevent those conflicts which have
| too often sprung up IN large cities whereat
courts Of the first instance are necessarily
/ numerous. Ii, therefore, 1t had been the ln-
| tention OF the trainers Of the constitution Of
| 1868 to deprive the Legislature OF a control
1 II No W .
| had been exercised without complaint III
Louisiana for nearly sixty years, it is likely
| they would have so declared III unmlStake-
able terms. Yet when we turn to the con-
stitution we End this provision:
| ''For each district there shall be one dis
| trict court, except in the parish OF Orleans,
| in which the General Assembly may estab-
| lish as many district courts as the public in
| terests may require. Until otherwise Or
| dered, there shall be seven district courts
| for the parish of Orleans, with the following <
| original jurisdiction The First, exclusive
| criminal jurisdiction Second, exclusive
| probate jurisdiction; Third, exclusive juris-
dlction Of appeals from justices OF the Peace
the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Dis
| trct Courts, exclusive jurisdiction in all
civil cases except probate, when the sum il
contes. is above one hundred dollars, exclu-
sive of interest. These seven courts shall
have such further jurisdiction hot incon-
stent herewith, as shall be conferred by
law
We find in this language express authority
conferred on the Legislature to create an
Eighth District Court, and we are unable to
perceive anything which prohibits the Legis.
lature from changing or multiplying the ju-
risdlction of the seven courts, whose exist
ence is thus provided for.
On the contrary, by a construction which
is neither forced nor unreasonable, this
power Of control and modification may be
fairly found in the article quoted. The
words "until otherwise prOvidedn may,
with entire grammatical propriety, be taken
TO qualify whatever succeeds them in the
sentence, and the whole interpreted to mean
that the determination IN the constitution,
both of the number Of courts and Of their
respective Jurisdictions, is provisional, and is
to last until otherwise provided; and that
when the Legislature shall choose TO act the
provisional regime shall cease, to the extent
Indicated by the law maker.
The reasonableness of this Interpretation
nay further appear from another considera-
ton. There Is given TO the Legislature q
power to increase indefinitely the number
of district courts in this parish, and every
citizen will hope that the population and
business OF New Orleans will grow SO largely
as to necessitate a still greater member of
district courts at some future day. But.
with every increase of number the danger
Of conflict of jurisdiction increases, and we
must therefore prefer an Interpretation
which leaves to the Legislature, along with
the power to increase the power Of regula-
tion and control. Again, as remarked by
the Judge of the Eighth District Court in
recent opinion which has been incorporated
in one of the briefs in this case, such an
Interpretation gives meaning to the whole
article.
"The General Assembly may establish as
many District Courts as the public interest
may require. In order to establish a court
in furtherance OF public interest the law
must vest it with jurisdiction over subject
matters of suit. But by carefully examin-
ing the article under discussion it will be |
seen that all possible jurisdiction has been
divided up between the seven courts named. |
70 the First District Court is granted ex- |
elusive criminal jurisdiction; to the Sec |
ond, exclusive probate jurisd iction; to the |
Third, exclusive jurisdiction in certain ap-
peals, and to the other courts exclusive |
jurisdiction over all other civil matters. In |
order to vest 4 new court with jurisdiction I
over any matter the law must first deprive
one or more Of these courts Of somewhat
of this exclusive jurisdiction. Thus the
temporary character of the investiture is de-
termined by necessity Of giving d meaning
to the entire article"
We must conclude, therefore. that it was
not clearly beyond the power Of the Legi5-
ature, in creating the Eighth District Court
to cOnfer upon ii the exclusive jurisdiction
defined in the statute under consideration,
and for this purpose to take from the Third
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Courts
some portion of the powers they had here
Ofore exercised.
The most that can be said for the argu.
nent against this power is that they go to
;reate doubt, and in such case the rule
las always been that the judiciary must
,onstrue the doubt in favor Of the law. Ed
yards VS.. Dupuy, 81 Aun., page 694, and
ulhorities there cited.
2. We have next to consider the effect of
his statute upon the REALTORS suit. By the
bird section 1t is provided that the Eighth
District Court hereby created shall have eX-
usive Jurisdiction IN and for the parish of
orleans to issue writs of injunction, n101add.
auSeS and quo aCdrrdnto, and to entertain
II proceedings, suits or contestations in
which the right to any Office, State, parish
r municipal, is in any way involved. *
Provided that this act shall not
e so construed as to prevent any judge or
ourt from issuing al Injunction to stay or
egulate the execution OF any order or sez-
re granted. or Judgment rendered, by said
ldge or court"
BY the fourth section it is provided "that
4 all cases in which an Injunction shall
;sue from the Eighth District Court in suits
r proceedings pending before the other
district Courts OF the parish of Orleans it
hall be the duty of the Judge and Clerk of
be court in which such suit or proceeding
pending. to imm mediately transfer the rec
rd 20 the Eighth District Court, which shall
e vested with the power to hear and deter
line such cases as if the same had been orig
lally brought in said Eighth District Court.
upon the passage Of the act it
hall be the duty of the Judges OF the Fourth,
ifth Sixth and Savanth District Courts of |