New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-01-14
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court of Louisiana

tonueTeu yeslerudy III tlo supreme Coui T.
Maurice NJ. Bowman g. Co. VS.. city OF
New Orleans-Appeal from the Sixth Dis
trict Court, parish of Orleans.-hotion to
dismiss. denied, and Judgment confirmed.
Given, Watt & Co, in liquidation, r. f.
Norten ct al, assignee in bankruptcy, ap
pelIants, VS.. G. NJ. Alexander g. Co,
Ricberson, Able g. Co, intervenors, ap-
pellees-Appeal from the Fourth District
Court, parish OF Orleans.-Judgment at
frmed.
Crescent City Bank VS. Joseph Herman
dez-Judgment affirmed
Charles Hodges Us. Graham, Hodges q
CO.-Judgment affirmed.
Given, Watts g. Co. We. G. d.. Alexander
g. Co.-Judgment affirmed.
J. d. OTeary VS.. Martin, Cobb & Co
Judgment affirmed.
Matilda Flower, wife Of W. Ii: Rice. vs.
Calvin Tate ct al.-Judgment against Tate
for sll 800
Dominique Daroc 70. Widow Ferrarie;
Widow Ferrarie VS.. Dominique Duroc and
sherih'-Two acknowledgement affirmed.
Frederick Belden We. Read 81 Hunt-Ap-
peal from the Fourth District Court. parish
of OrleaDs.-Judgment reversed and case
dismissed.
Ellen Fitzpatrick and husband VS..
Mutual Aid and Benevolent Life Assoc;a-
ton of Louisiana-Appeai from Seventh
bISIIOb NOulbt E"-AH'i - OAAS'''A'" ''NN@
ment affirmed.
J.O.A. Thomas va. city of New Orleans
Appeal from Sixth District Court, parish
of Orleans. Judgment annulled, and rem
dered in favor of defendant.
Thomas j. Emerson VS.. George Z. Porter
Appeal from the Fifth District Court,
parish of Orleans. Judgment affirmed.
K. A. Winter and W. A. Steele VS.. Beadie,
Winge g. Co.-Appeal from Seventh Dis
triat EOurt IND nuant u+fip.oad
Mrs. A. nj. Jennings VS.. Mrs. I. M.
McConnico-Appeal from Fourth District
Court, Orleans. Appeal dismissed.
Warehouse, Pearl & Co VS.. Citizens
Bank - Appeal from the Sixth District
Court, parish of Orleans. Judgment
affirmed.
Chopin e. White VS.. Blanc s. Legendre
Appeal from Fifth District Court, parish
of Orleans. Judgment affirmed
Alto Leblanc vs.. ID. A. Thibault & Dan
noy-Appeal from District Court of parish
of Plaquemines. Sent back for informal
ity.
j. Macheoa vs. P. Avegno, and P. Aveg-
no VS.. j. Macheea. Appeal from Sixth Dis
trict Court, parish Of Orleans. Judgment
in case of Macheca VS.. Ayegne affirmed;
judgment in case of Ayegno vs. Macheca
reversed.
A. w. Walker vs. Etienne Villavasso ct
ais Appeal from the District Court, parish
of st. Bernard. Motion to dismiss appeal
refused
Heirs of John Slidell vs. Edward Heath.
Appeal from Fourth District Court, parish
of Orleans. Judgment affirmed
Bank of New Orleans VS.. Orleans Rail
road Company ct ais Appeal from Fourth
District Court, parish of Orleans. Judg-
ment reversed.
A. NJ. HoIbrook vs. Jennie Bronson Hol-
brook. Appeal from Eighth District Court,
taken by defendant. Dismissed with costs.
Superior District Court.
The following decision was rendered yes
terday by Judge Hawkins:
State ex rel Attorney General on the in
formation of John r. Michel, VIZ. Benjamin
Campbell This is an action under the in
trusOn in office act, to test the right of the
defendant, Benjamin Campbell, to hold the
office of recorder of the Sixth District of
the city of New Orleans. Defendant was
elected recorder of said district by the City
Council of New Orleans and duly commits
stoned by the Mayor on the fourth of April,
1870, which, by the provisions of the char
ter, was to continue for two years. On the
fourth of April, 1872, two years after the
appointment by the Council, d vacancy
would occur, which it was made the duty
of the Council to fill by another appoint.
ment. The Council failed to act on this va
cancy, and Campbell continued to discharge
the duties of the Office under the provisions
of the constitution which require all officers
to remain in the discharge of their duties
until their successors are duly qualified and
indicted into office. On the twentieth day
of September, 1872, John 7. Michel was ap-
pointed by the Governor to fill said va
cancy. On the twenty fourth of Septem-
Der, 1872, Benjamin Campbell was re-elect-
ed by the Council to fill said Office. The
principal question in this case is the right
of the Governor to fill the vacancy where
the law had provided another and differ
ent mode of filling it. l am of opinion that
when the law creating an office provides
for filing the vacancies that may occur
they can not be filed in any other mode.
The vacancy that occurred i'll this Office by
the failure Of the Council to elect at the
date of the expiration of the term could
therefore only be filed by the Council.
Meanwhile the incumbent, Campbell,
continued to hold the Office and dis
charge the duties thereof The term
of the new appointment made by the COun-
Gil on the twenty fourth of September, 1872,
of course expires on the fourth of April,
1874. There was in this case no such va
cancy of the Office as the Governor might
fill by appointment. He can only fill va
cancies for the unexpired term. But this
vacancy occurs from the expiration of the
term, which does not fall within the pro
visions of the law comforting upon the Gov
ernor the power to fill vacancies
The appointment and commissioning of
Michel to the office of recorder of the Sixth
District of the city of New Orleans on the
twentieth day of September, 1872, was an
absolute nullity, and conferred no right
whatever upon him to the office.
Judgment for defendant.
State of Louisiana VS.. A. Dubuclet &C al.
In this case petition of intervention and
prayer to dissolve is filed by the New Or
leans, Mobile and Texas Railroad Compa-
nv PRAYING that the Attorney General show
cause on the thirteenth of January why
this Injunction so far as it concerned the
bonds and coupons Of this company, should
not be dismissed, on the following grounds:
!. There is no evidence b6sOre the court
to justify any Injunction nor any injunction
bond.
2. The Attorney General is without any
authority. in virtue of his Office, to institute
the suit.
3 There are no proper parties to the suit.
4. The bonds mentioned in the said sec
tions twelve and thirty, of the plaintiffs
petition were issued to intervenor in ex
change and payment for capital stock OF in
tervenor's company, to the amount of 81
100000 which stock was duly issued by
said company to the State OF Louisiana, and
is now held and owned by said State, and
can not be surrendered or transferred with
out the permission of the General Assembly
5. There is no warrant of law to author
ize this honorable court or any court TO en-
Join, Obstruct, or regulate the administra-
ton of the finances of the State by the leg
islative and executive departments IN the
manner attempted by the plaintiff! il this
case.
6. That the allegations of Ire petition
constitute no cause of action .. against the
Just rights of the intervenor.
J. That the allegations Of fact in said pc
titiOn, by which it is sought TO be estab.
lished that the bonds issued to intervenor
are ILLEGAL are erroneous