New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-01-24

that date. g. P $40: l.. 430: 19 a. 300.
Act Nc. As of 1870, sections.
Second-The law creating Che Superior
| District Court authorized the judge thereof
| to do in the cases transferred to it from
Che Eighth District Court, which was abOl-
ished, what the Judge OF the latter could
J have done. Act No : Of December IL.
| 1877.
! Third Whether W not che appointment
! by the Governor OF the Judge of the ElShth
! District Court or of the Superior District
| Court IL unconstitutional, null and v0lh,
! can No: be determined in This collateral
| manner. He was or is acting under such
| color ot authority Chat we can NOT on
| motion I, dismiss, go behind il and declare
| it an absolute nullity. 10 the case OF each
| of said courts the appointments OF the Juu. e
| wa. expressly authorized by the stature
| creating the court, rs ~ the ease Oh an
! original vacancy. Whether this nlght OF
I might not be sustained as constitutions IN
| proper proceeding, it IS clear that ms Is
| not the occasion to settle the question: 1 nc
| said Judge WAS or il manllestly an oIhcer
| dir 6fcfo At least. and his acts must be rec0g-
niled lust as those of an officer de Jure, until
upon a regular trial he is declared tot to
| be- an officer. - A. 40i; is Peters 1874; Do
Penn. 43G: Is Mass 1870; IS Wendell 49l.
| Fourth-The alleged want of interest in the
| appellant is the main ground relied on by
! the defendants. 1t was commended IN argu-
meft that the district court was without
| Jurisdiction, because the matter in dispute
| between the parties is too small, and hence
| this court has no jurisdiction.
This is met by the appellant with an
affidavit of one of the members of the
plaintiff board that his pecuniary interest
in the suit exceeds $1,000, and reference
to act No - of 1871 Up. 1922 shows that an
appropriation was made for the compensa-
ton of the same returning officers. This
mode of establishing an appealable interest,
under ouch circumstances, is fully sane
toned by our iuris prudence. See 81 A. 1876,
4i8: 20 A. SIS; - A. Coz; % A. $50, 769. In
addition to this. there can be no question
rs to the Importance OF the matters involved
in this controversy. 1t affects, to great
extent, the whole political fabric of the
State, and has even entered the depart
ments of the federal government Surely,
a subject which has commanded such
widespread interest, and has required an
argumf mt of three hours length from such
able counsel as represents the defendants,
can not be designated as too insignificant to
come within the consideration OF the Eighth
Distric. Court of New Orleans. or of this
court.
The object of tho limitation in the constr
tuition to the jurisdiction OF this tribunal is
simply to exclude from it such controver-
sizes UtJWtEu slU1SduLb IS dIb Vi
portance. This case is not Of that class.
Under every constitution of this State con-
tanning limitations of jurisdiction this court
has entertained jurisdiction OF suits of sepa-
ration from bed and board, and of divorce
when there was no appreciate money In
yolved. See 10 La. SOL. And so. too, of
suits by slaves for their freedom, Is A. 400.
The interest of the State and OF the people
of the State in the correctness of the ruling
Al Of Nnr 6lr-
leans in this proceeding is of such magnl-
tude that we would be dereIict if we should,
upon such bald technicality, refuse to en-
tertaiR jurisdiction OF the cause. even al
there were no pecuniary interest shown,
which, however. has been done.
The chief reliance, however, Seems 60 be
en- the fact that A. =. Field, in whose name
the appeal ~ taken, is third person with
out interest, and the case OF the State ex
gel Sullivan vs.. Mount 81 4. 7jj, is cited as
conclusive against his right to appeal.
In that case this court said: From his own
statements we could not perceive that the
appellant. q third party, had any interest
whatever in the matter in dispute and dis
MISE i the appeal. Without questioning
the conclusion arrived at, it does not, in our
opinion, settle she point as to the appeal In
this case, where the statements of the ap-
pelant do make his interest apparent.
Every case must he determined upon aus
own facts and merits.
A reference to the plain provisions OF the
law on this subject will furnish . safe
guide. Article 57l, Code of Practice, says:
THE right of appeal is given, not only TO
those who we're parties to the cause IN
which Judgment has been Sendered
against them, but also to third persons not
parties to such suit, when such third per
sons allege that they have been ssgrieged
by the Judgment
This seems to be unambigueus. IL must
be, of course, applied with reference to the
constitutional jurisdiction OF this court. Ii
the matter in dispute. involved IN the suit,
is such as to demand or authorize the action
of this court, the right to appeal is &C
corded by the above article to third per
sons who 0lie9c that they are aggrieved by
the Judgment rendered in a suit between
other parties. The law does not say that
such Judgment shall be res judieatG against
the third persons to entitle them to appeal.
1t does not say that they shall have such
right of action against one OF the parties as
to sustain an intervention in their suit and
claim the very thing which one OF the
parties is claiming. The only condition
is, they must make reasonable
| showing that the judgment complained
of is calculated in its effects to in
jure them. Now, in this case, A. P. Field
has made the requisite allegation, supported
BY his affidavit, and he has made it appar-
ent to our minds that he is aggrieved by
the Judgment appealed from, which annuls
the authority by which he was declared to
be elected Attorney General Of the State.
whose salary is $4,000 per annum, and the
return OF the plaintiff board is the tounda-
ton of his title to his office. Under ths
law it 10 not necessary, in support OF his
right of appeal, that he should demand in
this suit to be declared legally elected, nor
/ that he should seek to regulate the judg-
ment as between the parties TO the suit, but
simply to regulate it so far 90 it affects him.
The difficulty of adjusting .he rights in-
volyed in litigation does not control tho
right of action. The cases in 20 A., Il A,
- A. aud OR A., above cited, support the
right of the appellant to This appeal That
of tho State ex rel. Byerly We. Judge, % A.
1&S, was much less favorable to such right
than this CAGE is, and in that case we sus-
tanned Byerly's right as third person to
appeal.
But the interest of a. Z. Field as the a.
| torney General of the State, by whom such
actions as this may be broaght, is such as
to make Il appropriate in him to ask re-
vision of the judgment rendered in the
! court of the first instance.
If, however. there should be reasonable
| doubt as to the right of appeal now before
u.s. uuueE Jne VOL tSIapiiSncu Juii9 uuClAoo
| OF this court we would maintain II rs CON
stitutional right.
Fifth-What Is said above disp0ses prac
| ticaliy of the ground that the appellant has
no interest, because the plaintT board has
exercised ICs authority in his behalf and If
now JaHc'wS Qficjo. His interest is in hav
ing the legality of said board established al
the time it was exercising its functions. lie
does not pretend that said board shall again
act in his behalf. but that it shall be de
creed to have been the legal board of re
turning 0thcer4, Vgnen i declared bis cleo
| ton.
SNth-Tle objection Wat fuSi cen day,
| were nor allowed to bring VIZ Che appeal Is