New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-03
THE COURTS.

The following proceedings took place il
the federal courts yesterday:
new trial was granted in bankruptcy
to Isaac Raas.
Decision in the bankrupt Bank of Louisi
ana case, on a rule for costs of clerks, sher-
ifs and other fees, was postponed until the
arrival of the circuit judge.
In the bankruptcy case of S. S. Barnber
ger, the court decreed that he is discharged
from all debts which existed on the second
of December, 1868, the date of filing the
petition.
| The cause of forcing the Bulletin Com
pany into bankruptcy was confined until
to-day, with eleven jurors.
| The grand jury met yesterday, and, agree
! arrested. adjourned until the eighth instant.
| Judge Theard yesterday rendered the
| following decision:
Charles Yaeger vs.. city of New Orleans
| Plaintiff alleges that in 1868 the city of New
| Orleans entered into a contract with one
Rust to eXcavate canal on Orleans street
for drainage purposes; that a canal, meas
uring some twenty feet wide and two feet
deep, was dug in the street, but owing to
some disagreement between the contractor
and the city the work was left in an untin
ished state; that the water of said canal,
which has no outlet, OvertlOws with every
rain. floods plaintiffs property to the depth
of six inches, drives away his tenants, etc.
in consequence of which acts he has suf
fered loss and damage to the extent Of $500,
f" which he asks judgment against the
city of New Orleans
A supplemental petition was fled, in
which it is alleged that the contractor con-
structed levees on each side of the canal,
which contribute to promote the overflow,
as set forth in the original petition.
To these petitions the city pleaded the
general issue. and prescription Of one year.
The prescription appears to me to be un-
tenable. and not applicable to this case, and
is therefore Overruled.
As to the damages sustained by the
plaintiff, they are fully established by the
evidence, and they seem to be much above
the amount which he claims.
The only question then to be solved is as
to the responsibility OF the city for the
damages.
The learned counsel for the city contends
that "a municipal corporation in the exer-
else Of power which it possesses for public
purposes, and which it holds as part Of the
country. enjoys the exemption Of govern
ment from responsibility for its own acts,
and the acts of its officers, deriving their
authority from the sovereign power"
This question is not a novel one, and l
consider that the jurisprudence on that
point is well settled.
A corporation is exempt from liability
whenever the duties imposed upon it's officers
are Of "a judicial nature, but this immunity
extends no further; when the duties required
Of its officers are purely ministerial, they
are responsible for any neglect or omission
which may occasion damages to any one.
Tie principle on which l rely to decide
this case in favor of the plaintiff is we'll de-
fined in the cases of the Rochester White
Lead Company vs. the city of Rochester
Comstock New York Reports Lacour vs..
the city of New YOrk-3 New York Re-
ports. p. 4l5; Parker vs.. city of Loweil-ll
Gray's Massachusetts Reports, p. 35l; Jo-
siah S. Terry VS.. city of Worcester
Gray's Massachusetts Reports, p. 81 and
numerous other decisions; see also Spear
man & Redfeld on Negligence. section 1885,
D. 162, and section l37, p. l63.
Judgment for plaintiff for $500.
Same Judgment entered in the following
cases, brought by the same counsel, for the
some causes of action, to wit:
Pierre Cantarou, agent, VS.. city of New
Orleans: Jean Marie Saux va. same; Pierre
Cantarou VS.. same; Widow Puissugure VS..
same.
In the Eighth District Court, the case of
Magner against the city of New Orleans,
laying a claim of $4,000 damages against
the city for the riot OF 1868, Judgment was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff.