New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-06-04
certain claims due by the late City Of DC

certain claims due bY the late Wy "a pei
ferson for shelling St Charles avenue.
Defendant sets up that the warrants are
claimed by another party: That party. al
tBolisb appearing in court, declinedt to inter
vene7 for what reason was not shown. The
evidence showing, the REALTORS to- be the
legal assignees Of the claim the court has
ordered istbat the mandamus be made
peremptorv: the REALTORS be declared entl-
tied to the amount, and Judgment rendered
sgainst Correjolles for declining to inter-
vene."
Tie rule Hisi taken by c. III. Siocomb ct
al, on James Graham, Auditor, ct a., 10
prevent the issuance of the bonds OF the
State to the Mobile and Chattanooga rail-
road, has been refixed for hearing to Mon
day, June 5.
In the case of the State of Louisiana ex
rel. city of New Orleans VS.. New Orleans
and Ship Island Canal Company ct ais, Judge
Dihble yesterday morning rendered de-
cision making the mandamus herein per-
emptory. The following is the decision:
The city of New Orleans prays for the
writ of mandamus to compel certain drain
age commissioners and the Ship Island
Canal Company to turn over to the city the
books and papers heretofore within the con
troll of the several drainage boards. This
demand is made under and by virtue of the
provisions of act No 80 of the session of
1871, entitled an act relative to the drainage
of the city of New Orleans.
The Drainage Commissioners for the First
Drainage District report that the act is I'M
constitutional and void. The same ques
tons are involved as in the case of the State
ex rel the New Orleans and Ship Island
Canal Company vs. n. E. Bailey, and Moses
Eastman. In that case it was held that the
whole subject of drainage, about which SO
much litigation has taken place, is within
the legislative discretion. In those proceed
ings the Drainage Commissioners argued
that the grant to the Ship Island Company
of the right to control the drainage funds
was violation of vested rights and an act
impairing obligations of contracts. Here
the relator in that suit sets up the same
plea For the reasons that were then given
for sustaining the statute attacked, the pres
ent law must be held valid. The mandamus
will be made peremptOry.
In the case of Joseph Hough VS.. Joseph
Hernandez, Judge Dibble rendered de-
cision, refusing the motion for new trial.
The following is the decision: ...
The action against the sureties on the
bond OF Charles Bienvenu, late Sheriff was
dismissed upon the plea of prescription of
ten years. Il. s., section 3546. Plaintiff
urged that the prescription was interrupted
by certain judicial proceedings taken in the
Fifth District Court. The sureties were
proceeded against by rule. The Judgment
rendered against them was, however, de-
creed null by the Supreme Court. Pre-
scriptiOn was, therefore, not interrupted,
because there was no citation. 6 R., l42;
An, 927; An, 55l; q An, Glib.
A motion for new trial has been made.
1t was urged that prescription was at all
events interrupted by proceedings taken
against the principal on the bond by way of
rule proceedings held to be sufficient. 1t is
certainly correct that such proceedings had
the effect to interrupt prescription running
in favor of defendants. c. c. 1858 But it
is no less correct that prescription imme-
diately begins to run as IN their favor. 5
An. 53l; 2 An. $40. The judgment against
the principal debtor can have no effect to
change the nature of the obligation of the
co-debtor bound in solido. 2 An. $40. The
rule against Bienvenu, principal upon the
bond, was served upon him July 81, 1867;
Judgment was entered December 7, 1867.
this suit was brought more than two years
thereafter and the right of action is pre-
scribed The motion for new trial is re-
fused.