New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-11-23
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER II. !o'''
Superior Districs Court.

7 Ahe questions presented Uy luis iiti S1'A"A
in the form of exceptions, which, II sue
ctssful. operate as a bar to- the suit. are az
| l understand them, three in number. They
! have been pleaded sufficiently accurate and
! tenable for the court to consider each one
! separately.
! The first is want of authority In the pain
! tiff, the Attorney General. to bring the suit
| That question, believe. is not seriously In
, sisted on and, think. needs 90 consldega
| ton at all.
The second exception is that of res adiu
mands of the petition. informally ana !aI!-
ure to disclose cause OF action.
The doctrine is we'll settled that res aCJu'
dicata will only be where the same matters
have been passed upon between the same
parties and for the same cause OF action
The facts disclose that the defendant III
this suit, Richard Taylor, was the jud gment
debtor to Charles Case in some individual
matter to a considerable amount. and IN
pursuance of the execution OF that Judg-
Ment, the lease, and the revenues OF this
lease from the State to Richard Taylor,
were seized and sought to be applied to the
payment of that judgment. Taylor made
no defense on his own account, but the
State interviewed for the purpose OF protect
ing her rights over the work that he was to
do as lessee. The case was decided ad-
versely to Case, who appealed, and the Su-
preme Court affirmed the judgment of the
Fifth District Court dlsmissing the seizure,
on the ground principally that this was
not lease in terms. but was a contract
for labor to be done on public work OF the
State and could not be interrupted or in
tertered with by a private party. There
does not seem In that case to have been any
issue joined between Taylor and the State.
So far as those parties were concerned,
their rights appear to hive been the same,
each one wanting to defeat the Selling
creditor, so that the operations OF the lease
might not be disturbed or interiered with.
1t is clear that those public works which
were going on under the contract between
Taylor and the State-whether it be a
lease or contract for the hire of abort
purchased, the Selling creditor could give
no guarantee-could not have substi-
tutedo without the consent o: the
State, amt the State was there for the
purpose of opposing any such tran sfer.
Consequently the sanction OF the State to
the transfer could not be had by any person
who might purchase it. There having been
no adjudication as between Taylor and the
State IN that case, the cause of action is not
the same between the parties litigant in
that suit and IN the present one. In this
suit the State, through its legally consti.
tuted otficers, bring suit TO annul the lease.
There was NO such demand asked for in that
case. This is sufficient to override the plea
of .es adjudicat'. 1 will. however, remark
chat this general principle that the plea of
ses adJ@dieato must be confined to the same
parties and same cause of action is not in
all cases strictly correct.
There may be case III which the matters
passed upon would be conclusive and would
operate an estoppal of further proceed
ings in the case. Then. although there
might be different partiese and what might
not be exactly the same cause of action. if
the matters adjudicated upon were concuo
siye of all the rights between the parties.
then it would form res aajudtcatc without
technically with the other re-
Quirements. But do not see that in that
decision there was anything passed upon at
all between Taylor and the State. Conse
quently the ses adjudicutu is not established
by the proceeding had frs, in the Fifth
District Court and atteywaid in sh- SU.
preme Court
II is an established principle governing
judicial proceedings, tina, any party coming
INTO cour! OF justice is compelled to dis
close cause OF action ia ll> iemande If
they fail to do it Che action Wi! be Dis.
missed
IN 1860 Tease Ct this canal was made.
will call it a lease notwithstanding the De.
cision OF the Supreme Court. because the F.
has styled il lease and che
party. plaintiff and defendant. speak of it
AS lease: and having been SO declared by F.;
positive law, the court vii! not change the !
used or allow parties to desig. |
nate it otherwise. but vii! hold each one to !
he strict meaning OF the language used.
the Legislature passed an act IN 1866 |
authorizing . notarial act o; lease - be !
made between Richard Taylor and the State !
Tor this canal. for q stipulated amount of .
rent to be paid annually. In I6s. the same |
composed of the same mem !
sers and the same chief executive officer. /!
passed an act changing the terms. condi- |
ions and stipulations OF this lease. and pro I!
'iding thai in lieu of the annua! rent. as
stipulated III the original lease. the lessee ;
Was authorized TO construct certain works |
lnder specifications. such as widening Nh. |
ANAL. improving the shell road, maxim. !
certain excavations and certain basins, |;
designating the width. depth and length of !!
hose works, pro:iding ais" tina. the canal !!
should be excavated to - certain width and |
itpthe The lessee was in the enjoyment of !
he property, and will here remark he was !
allowed five years within which to complete :
hese various works.
After the adoption Of the constitution of |!
S6s. the Legislature convened under tina, !
constitution. in 1870. passed another addi- I
lonal act on this subject. fixing other con. !
litionss and removed certain stipulatons !
which had already been enacted in 1867, !
possibly some portion OF them had not been !
complied with.
The first question that present. itself in I
considering this NATTER is the power of the !
legislature TO alter. modify or change the
ontraet between the State and the lessee.
hat matter la. been so thoroughly COM
lenfei upon and so often ad juG!cated upon.
u3s \ ~ 20 il ss al Ex |
uestlono
1t is clearly within the power nf the leg
stature TO make any modification or
hanges they may think proper where the
tate is involved or IS d party to- The
legislature has the power TO modify, pre-
CRYING, however, any rights the lessee or
Their party may have; they can not by any
ubsequent legislation infringe upon any
lights a party has acquired. These moditi-
ations from time TO time were made with
he defendant and he accepted them, and
ow pleads them, aud can not he heard to
D complain. Only such notifications as
he Legislature has made can be considered.
he court can infer nothing.
The act of 1867 specifies a given time
'ithin which the improvements should be
lade, and the labor performed, in lieu of
lie payment Of rent. The act Of 1870 is
lent on ybat question; an act which was
assed, intervening about midway between
ne time the work was required * be com
Fenced and the limitation at which it was
he completed. The act Of 1870 only au-
lorizes a change in the work, as has been
orrectly stated by counsel. Ii was mma-
rial whether that work was greater or |
SIS, the defendant himself invokes that
ct, and the court is bound to presume he !
j. less onerous; otherwise as !
lie State does not attack him in that act.
, muss be considered considering it
IS onerous 'haH the other, and TO his
Vantage The Legislature falling 10
itend the time in the act OF 1870, the
,Yrt cannot extend il, bur is bound by /
10 specifications i'll the other acr; and in a
,se of thi. character : does not strike me [
can plead in bar those acts. This action | Z