New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-19
EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT
JCAKsoN RAILROAD CASE
THE WRIT OF ERROR REFUSED

JCAKSON RAILROAD CASE
THE WRIT OF ERROR REFUSED
Judge Dibble yesterday rendered the fol-
lowing decision: u
Eighth DissDot Court Of ths pariss q Of,eans r1
| In the case No. 81, between Il. 8. Nc
Comb and others against G.. T. Beaureeart
| ana others. the several defendants severally
pray for writ of error to the Supreme
| Court OF the United States, and tender to
you such bond and such security as win
operate as supercedias.
The grounds OF their application are that
IN their pleadings they have asserted that
the acts Of the Legislature Of Louisiapa 40
not allow Of transfer of the shares Of the
State Of Louieians or the city of New or.
leans, 90 as to authorize any party to vote
| at the election for directors OF the company.
ana that the attempt to confer such an act
BY the General Assembly of the State i'm
pairs the obligation Of contracts contrary
to the constitution. The decision of the
the constitution.
They have set up in their pleadiDgs 20
| contract under the charter, that the
plaintiff, kcComb, had no right, either BY
himself or as proxy for the Governor, to
vote upon the stock Of the State under the
act OF March 10, 1868, and that the said act
is part of the charter OF the company. and
| contract between the State and the New
Orleans, Jackson and Great Northern Rail-
road Company, and the decision of the court
is there is no such contract, and none has
been impaired.
The defendants have set up that their
Charter derived from the State does not
allow Of an election except when legal no.
tice. and by the appointment OF inspectors
BY the Board Of Directors, and there is .
decision that the charter does not contain
such . contract, and that the election in
this case is valid. The parties defendant
aver that they are entitled to hold their
Offices under contract that Can not be i'm
paired by State legislation or State interpre.
tation, and that this contract is impaired by
the judgment of the court.
Tney ask of the court to determine the
amount Of the bonds. and sign citation and
writ OF error, it appearing that it holds this
Judgment 70 be fnal, and that no appeal to
the Supreme Court Of the State Of Louisiana
can be taken. ..-
There IL no limit as to amount in regard
to writs Of error to the Supreme Court of
CAMPBELL. sPOFFoRD & CAMPBELL.
For the reasons in the written opinion an.
nexed and making part Of this refusal.
decline to grant the writ of error prayed for.
This application, together with the rea.
sons for refusing the writ will be entered Of
record, and . certified transcript thereof
furnished to petitioners at once.
NEW ORLIANs. June II, 1870.
HENRY c. DI BIBLE, Judge.
Eighth District Court, parish of Orleans
In the matter Of the application OF G. I.
Beauregard ct ais, for writ OF error 10 the
Supreme Court Of the United States, to re-
view the decree in case No. 81, OF the
docket of this court.
This writ Of error il asked under section
twenty-five. of the judiciary act of 1883.
That section provides that the Supreme
Court of the United States shall have juris.
diction t. re.examine, reverse or affirm
final Judgment Of the highest court of law
or equity in q State in which decision In
the suit could be had, in the following
cases: 49,,
/. Where is drawn in question the validity
Of Law OF authority received under the
United States, and the decision IL against
such validity.
2. Where 10 drawn in question the val
idity of Q statute Of, or an authority exer.
cised under any State, on the grounds OF
their being fepugnant to the constitution,
treaties, or laws Of the United States, and
the decision is in favor of such, their
validity; az Where is drawn in question.
the. construction of any clause of the Con-
stitution of the United States, or Of q treaty
or statute of, or commission held under the
United States, and the decision Is against
the title, right, privilege or exception,
specially set up Or claimed by either party,
under such clause of the said constitution,
treaty, statute or commission.
Three things must concur and be ap-
parent from the record, to give the Supreme
;,,rs fhoaQ nr0Vla10NS:
1. One or more of the questions stated in
section twenty-five aforesaid, must have
arisen in the State court.
2, The State court must have actually De.
cided such question or questions. Crowen
Va. Randall, 10 Pit, 1858; IL Pit, 587, ana
8. The decision OF such question must
have been necessary to the Judgment rem
dered and complained Oft must appear
nom the record that the State court could
not have given the judgment without de-
Gliding such question. Armstrong vs. Treas.
urer. etc, Is Pit, 281; Smith VS.. Hunter,
Howard. 73S; Commercial Bank OF Cincin'
natl vs.. Buckingham. S Howard, BIZ; MILLS
We. Brown, 16 Pit. 523.
Applying these rules, 1t IS apparent tnat
this application must be refused.
/. The first ground upon which the right
to the writ of error is placed Is stated TO pc
that the court decreed the statute passed oy
the Legislature Of Louisiana, and approved
April I, 1870, authorizing the sale OF the
etock in the New Orleans, jackson ana
Great Northern Railroad Company, standing
in the name of the State and OF the city OF
New Orleans, to be constitutional ana vaild;
and. it is averred. the defendants plead tnat
the said statute violates the constltutlQn OF
the United States in that it impairs the oDii-
CATION of q contract.
The statement has no foundation in 1act.
The statute referred to is not drawnln ques'
tion in the proceedings. although men
toned BY defendants and by the court IN It's
written opinion. The validity or non-va-
lidity of the same was not essenilaa 10 nor
did It have anything to 90 with me aeclsiVa 9a
of the court. It was not deemed 70 pc vA.o
nor in any way passed upon as 70 us cons., W
the conrt that the relators were entitled to
the office of directors of the railroad com,
pany aforesaid (the decree). was feacnea
without regard to the constltutlonaIty OIL
the said law, which assumed 70 empower
the transferees Of the stock authorized 70
be sold, to represent and vote the same IA
meetings of stockholders. No action al the
election was taken under said law:
2. The second ground for the Wrlt OF error
is the complaint that the court decloeo tna1
a pretended act of the Legislature OF Lou,
isiana purporting to have been approved
March 10, 1858, had no existence as Law
under the constitution of the State, anu,
therefore. did not, could not, constitute
contract between the State and said railroad
company, whereby the State should be pro-
hibited from voting its stock in SAID COM
pany at meetings of stockholders, Ii lor
no other reason, writ OF error Will not ne
from this ruling, because the decision upon POI