The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-12-16
DECISION OF JUDGE WOODS.
HE ORDERS THE RELEASE oP THE CITY FUNDS
IN BANK

plaintiff being the holder of certain bonds
issued by the city of New Orleans, in aid OF
the Opelousas Railroad and of the Jackson
Railroad, and the bonds having become due
and remaining unpaid, has reduced the same
to judgment in this court.
In pursuance, as it is claimed, of the orgi-
nal act which authorized the issue of the
bonds, the city has levied tax to pay the in.
terest thereon, and fund for this purpose,
amounting to Sl05, 1000, has been deposited by
the city in the Louisiana National Bank. l.
is deposited in the bank to the credit of the
fund for the payment Of the interest on the
bonds, but is not sufficient to pay the in
terest on all the bonds.
The plaintiff having, as stated, received a
judgment both for the principal and interest
due on his bonds, has attached this fund and
served notice of gara.sh1ent upon the Lou.
isiana National Bank.
The motion is to dissolve this attachment
B. F. Jonas, City Attorney, for motion; Mr.
| T. j. Semmes. contra.
| Woods Circuit Judge.
| 1t is claimed in behalf of the city that the
taxes and public revenues of municipal cor
poration can not be seized under execution
against them, and that the doctrine of the in
| volatility of the public revenues by the
! creditor is maintained although the corpora
| ton is in debt and has no means of payment
but the taxes which it is authorized to collect.
Dillon on Municipal Corporations, Sec. 81;
Edgerton VS.. The Third Municipality, An
nual, 435; Hart VS.. same, 6 Annual, 57l.
This, as a general rule, is conceded; but
it is claimed that the circumstances of this
case make it an exception.
l. 1t is said that the city having deposited
this money in bank, the bank has truly be-
come the debtor of the city, and the fund has
lost its distinctive character as public revenue
and become simply debt due the city from
the bank, and subject to garrishment by any
creditor of the city. In support of this view
the cases of Stetsoa vs.. Gurney IL La, 1G2,
and Norris vs.. Henry, 26 Annual 625, are
cited, where it is held that money deposited
in a bank by an agent in his own name can not
be identified and become a debt due to the
depositor from the bank, and is not debt
due the principal.
This argument applies to ali the funds of
the city raised by taxation for all purposes
So that if we give this theory full force it fol-
lows that whenever municipal corporation,
either from necessity Or as matter of con-
yenience, deposits its revenues in bank to
be drawn upon for public USES no matter to
what purpose appropriated, they are liable to
be seized by its creditors; that funds for feed
ing prisoners. sustaining hospitals, lighting
the streets, keeping supply of water for the
extinguishment OF fires, paying the police,
etc., are all subject to be appropriated by any
enterprisng creditor who cnoSes to make the
necessary effort. II funds raised for the pay
ment OF interest can be seized because the
city has deposited them in a bank, it follows
that funds raised for any of the other pur-
poses named may also be seized.
do not think the manner or place In which
the public revenues OF q municipal corpora
ton are kept, divests them Of their public
character, or subjects them to be diverted
from the purposes for which, and for which
only, the law authorized them to be collected.
In my Judgment, a municipal corporation
stands in body different from an individual
in such case. The officers of city charged
with the execution of great public trust, on
which depends the comfort, safety, lives and
property of the inhabitants, cannot by the
manner in which they keep the public reve-
nues subject them to seizure by the public
creditors, and thus defeat the very purposes
for which the municipal body was created.
The facts therefore, that the city made the
Louisiana National Bank the depository of its
public revenues, does not subject them to
seizure and garnishment.
It is claimed (2) that the law auth orizing
the city to issue the bonds held by plaintiff
only authorized the city to levy tax to pay
the interest thereon until their maturity; that
bonds after maturity, and is therefore
of the city which is not applicable
by law to any specified purpose, and is there
fore subject to seizure by any creditor who
has a Judgment against the city.
But the law does not so read. 1t provides
that ga special tax on real estate and slaves
shall be levied in January of each year sufi-
cient to pay the annual interest on said bonds
provided that no levy of tax for the
payment of interest on said bonds shall be
made after the payment of dividends OF per
cent per annum on the stock of the company
held BY the city," Under this act the au-
thority to levy tax for the payment of the !
interest upon the bonds is just as clear, and |
the duty just as imperative after the maturity |
Of the bonds as before, unless the stock for
which the bonds were issued pays dividends |
Of six per cent, which is not and never has |
been the case If the city refused to |
levy a tax for interest after the maturity of |
The bonds 1 think bondholder who had re-
iuced his to Judgment might have the writ |
Of mandsmus to compel the city to levy and