New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-07-19
SUPREME COURT.
The Railroad Bonds Case-The Court De.
cides that the Auditor Has the Right to

The Railroad Bonds Case-The Court De-
cides that the Auditor Has the Right to
Appeal.
The following is a transcript Of the judg-
ment of the Supreme Court in the case be-
low stated: /;
Supreme Court, State of Louisiana, Mon
roe, Louisiana, Ouachita parish, July II,
1871. The court met pursuant to adjourn
ment; present, their hOnors John t. Lude-
ling, Chief Justice, James G. Taliaferro, r.
B. Howell, w. G. WHY and w. w. Howe,
associate justices.
State of Louisiana ex rel James Graham,
Auditor, and A. Dubuclet, Treasurer, VS..
the State of Louisiana, Eighth District Court
for the parish Of Orleans Application for
writ of mandamus. In this case, Mr..
Chief Justice Ludeling this day delivered
the following opinion and decree:
The New Orleans, Mobile and Texas Rail
road Company instituted proceedings
against the Auditor and Treasurer of the
State of Louisiana, to compel them to regis
ter bonds of the State in favor of said
company to the amount of S750,000, in &C
cordanoe with the provisions OF the act No.
81 of the General Assembly of 1870.
After hearing, the judge made the man
damus peremptOry, commanding the said
officers to perform the acts required OF
was refused by the judge: thereupon a writ
of mandamus was applied for to compel the
judge to grant the appeal.
In his answer the judge assigns two rea-
sons for his refusal:
First-Because the relators failed and re-
fused to make proof in the lower court that
they have an appealable interest.
SecOnd-Because the Auditor and Treas
urer have no interest which would author
tznf fhnn 10 fo hnfo hfo
honorable court and they have no constitu-
tional or legal right to prosecute such an
appeal in the name of the State.
l. The object of the proceeding against
the Auditor and Treasurer is to make them
register bonds of the State of Louisiana in
favor of the New Orleans, Mobile and Texas
Railroad Company for S750,000, so that said
bonds might be delivered to them.
If Ifjudgment had been rendered against
the railroad company, would it have had the
right of appeal under the allegations in the
petition
We can not conceive that there could
be a doubt of this; the matter in dispute
is the issuing of bonds to the amount of
S75O,OO0; the registration thereof by the
Auditor and the Treasurer, being acts which,
under the law of 1870 should precede their
delivery to the railroad company.
2. The Auditor and Treasurer are the de-
PENDANTS in the suit. 1t would be most
strange if they could not appeal from
Judgment against them when the matter in
dispute exceeds five hundred dollars.
The cases relied ON by the judge quo,
reported in 9 A., 400, and 12 An. 49S, are
totally inapplicable to this case. Article
564 C.. P, declares that "an appeal is the
act by which one of the parties to suit has
recourse to superior tribunal, in order to
have Judgment of an inferior court cor
rected." This right is secured not only to
all who are parties to the suit, but to third
persons, when they are aggrieved by the
Judgment. Art. 57l, C..
We consider the answer of the Judge
a q,tO insufficient to justify his refusal of
the appeal
1t is therefore ordered that the judge of
of the Eighth District Court for the parish
of Orleans, do grant suspensive appeal as
prayed for, according to law. san 8
Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court,
Of the State of Louisiana, Monroe, July 13,
ISL do hereby certify that the above
and foregoing four pages contain true and
correct copy of the opinion and decree of
this court, as rendered ON the twelfth July,
A. D. 1871, in the aforesaid mentioned
cause.
In testimony whereof, l have this the
thirteenth day of July, A. D. 1871, set my
seal and signature.
w. II. DINKGRAVE,
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State
of Louisiana.