New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-02-02

act of the twentieth of March, 1889, incor-
porating the town of Shreveport and giving
the municipal authorities excluive right to
establish ferries across Red river, did not
create q contract or vested rights in that
corporation which tho Legislature could not
c0nstitutionallv change or annul."
And this doctrine was reaf6rmed by this
court in the case of Marks vs.. the town Of
Donaldsonville, "a A. 242. See also the
case of Layton vs.. city of New Orleans, II
A., SIS; Dillon on Corporations, second
edition, 81, 40; II Peters, $50; How, 534.
We therefore conclude that the interven-
ton of the city of New Orleans can not be
maintained.
It is therefore ordered that the Judgment
herein be set aside and annuled, and it is
decreed that the plaintiff, the Crescent City
Gaslight Company has the sole and exclu-
sive right to make and sell illuminating gas
in the city of New Orleans for fifty years
from the first of April, 1875; that the
act OF March /, 1860, extending the
charter of the defendant, the New
Orleans Gas light Company. from first
April. 1875, until first of April, 1895, is uncon-
stitutiOnal and void, and that the defendant
be enioined and inhibited from setting up
any claims hereunder, or from attempting
the business of making and vending gas
after first of April, 1875, or from in any man
ner impeding the plaintiff from the full en-
jOyment OF its franchises, rights and
privileges arising under the acts of April,
20, 1870, and July 10, 1873. 1t is further or
dered that the intervention Of the State be
dismissed with costs and the demand of the
interven0r, the city of New Orleans, be
rejected with costs of its Intervention. 1t
is further ordered that the defendant pay
costs of both courts.
No OQfO Mec II V.ofrono and hushauH
vs.. city Of New Orleans.-From sixth
District Court. The important question is
whether plaintiffs property situated on
Bourbon street, actually used as q school
house for the purpose OF educating female
children, is liable to the taxes of the city of
New Orleans for the year 1869. Under the
city charter, prior to the constitution of
1865, property actually used for a school
was exempt from taxation, unless it
exclusively belonged to an Incorporated or
religious society. Therefore defendant
contends that plaintiffs property is not
exempt for taxes OF 1869. On the other
hand it is urged that subsequent to the
charter of the city denying exemption Of
PLAINTIFF taxes, the consultation of 1868
provides, article 1l8, that taxes shall be
uniform; all property shall be taxed. and
the Legislature may exempt from taxation
prop erty actually used for Church, school
General Assembly. October u. 1868, prior
to the assessment of plaintiffs taxes,
"colleges, school houses and other
buildings for the purpose Of education, and
their furniture, apparatus and all equip
ments, and the lots thereto appurtenant
and used Herewith, so long as the same
shall be actually used for that purpose" 1t
IS urged that this law exempted taxation
by the city. We think an exemption of
property expressly granted in the constitu-
ton OF in q law specially authorized by it.
means an exemption Of municipal as we'll
as State taxation. The Legislature means
a complete not partial exemption. Judg-
ment in favor OF defendant annulled, and
it is decreed that there be judgment for
plaintiff, perpetually enjoining the defend.
ant from collecting taxes Of 1869; also
annulling the judgment obtained by the de-
fendant for the amount Of said taxes; and
that defendant pay costs in both suits.
No. 5349. Payne, Damercn g. Co. vs..
Court. The plaintiffs, holders of defend
ants note for $4,000. secured by special
mortgage and vendors privilege ON plaRtar
ton in st. Landry, foreclosed the mortgage.
and it was sold by the sheriff Of St. Landry,
September Z, 1872, to Ebert CAN'T from
whom defendants had bought it) for $40, 735,
OF which 1866 46 was applied to taxes and
costs; $l9l2 63 to the part satisfaction Of
writ from the district court Of St. Landry,
under judgment on a note OF concurrent
rank, secured by same mortgage; $S897 g
in part satisfaction of the writ under which
sale was made. and the balance, $9056 20,
was retained by the purchaser for part
satisfaction of an outstanding note, secured
in the same mortgage, for Sic, 600, due Janu.
ary l, 1873. Eighteen monGhs after sale and
distribution Edward j. Gay & Co. filed
what they term third opposition, alleging
they held mortgage second in rank to the
one under which sale was made. for
$437l Is. and alleging that the note Of
$4,000 (for pay ment of which $9O56 20 had
been retained by purchaser) was not valid,
because the plea Of failure;of consideration
lies against it; they pray that Payne, Dam
eron T. Co. and Ebert CAN'T be cited to
show cause why they Gay & co., should
not be paid the amount of second mortgage
out of the amount retained for the payment
Of the $4,000 note. The court dismissed
the opposition, and Gay e. Co. appealed.
The Judgment is affirmed. The Code Of
Practice, article 1895. defines third Opposi
ton and articles 1896 and 1917 how it may
take place. How the plaintiffs expect ''tO
regulate the effect of a seizure in what re-
eighteen months after the seizure is re-
distributed we can not imagine.
No. 394e. Mechanics and Traders Bank
vs. j. Barnett.-From Fifth District Court
On March "a, 1870, Carlos Marks & Co. had
discounted at the Mechanics and Traders
Bank their three prOmissory notes for $1,000
each, pays able in thirty, forty and sixty
days, pledging as security the accommoda-
ton note Of j. Barnett for $500, drawn to
his order and indorsed in blank, payable
lntn 81 Nor he T.
failed before maturity, and the note was
paid BY Barnett, who also paid the second
note at maturity. Barnett applied to pay
the third note for which his own was in
pledge, and its payment was refused,
the bank demanding the payment Of
the pledged note in full. Plaintiff
1.-THE bank sued Barnett for $500,
the full amoun5 of the accommodation
note. Decision was given for defendant,
and plaintiff was required to deliver the
note on payment OF $1,000 Plaintiffs ap-
pealed. 1t is not proved that formal
tender-art. 407, c. P.-was made, and the
defendant can not avail himself Of exonera-
ton from interest and costs stated in art. AIS.
C. p; see also L. l9, X. IA; , A. 4l9; l2
A. 246; r. C. 2l6s, 2l69; c. p. 40+, 407. 1t is
ordered that judgment be set aside and that
plaintiff recover $1,000 with legal interest,
from May "a, 1870, on delivering the note in
suit to defendant and the note of Carlos
Marks & Co.; defendant to pay costs in both
courts.
No. 1854. Edward Gay & Co. vs.. Eaton
& Barstow.-From Fourth District Court.
Plaintiffs sued defendants, firm domiciled
in Rapides, for advances and supplies, and
they sequestered sugar and molasses claimed
to be raised on the plantation to which they
furnished supplies. Behan ct al and Cant
interviewed, asserting a prior claim. The
court dismissed the suit er proprio moter,
for want of jurisdiction, it appearing that
the domicile of defendants firm was not in
New Orleans. The judgment is affirmed.
see case OF Rochereau & Co., agents, vs..
Marcel Guidry, "a An, 309.
M 5S9f Sto%o ov raj At<orpav Gonoro1