The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-03-31
CITY BONDS.
Judge Woods Refuses to Disturb
Their Status.
Decision in the Norris Ranger Case

Judge Woods, in the case of Morris Ranger
VS.. the city of New Orleans. read an elaborate
opinion Thursday morning.
He said that the bill sets forth that the
plaintiff was the holder of five jackson Rail-
road city bonds, under the act Of the Legisla-
tpre of 1854. Further, that the complainant
had obtained Judgment on them and execution
had been taken out.
The Judge reviewed the consolidation of
the several municipalities of the city and re-
ferred to the charges of the bill that tho
issuance of bonds since has been illegal. The
bill complains particularly against the Pre-
MUM Bond Plan, and asks particularly to
restrain the city from carrying it into effect.
Judge Woods said this case was essentially
the same as the Maenhaut case, already de-
cided; that as no harm could come to the city
he would grant that portion of the Injunction
to prevent the city from diverting interest
funds.
The second part of the injunction, asking
that the city be restrained from receiving
scrip, he refused. 1t seemed that the COM
plainant was standing in his own light. All
that the bondholder can ask is that the tax
shall be levied and collected and his interest
paid. He said that it was impossible for the
city to collect old outstanding taxes, unless
they are paid in something less valuable than
money.
On the third branch of the injunction, ask
ing that the city be enjoined from paying
bonds not due where the complainants bonds
are due; he said holders of bonds under the
consolidation acts, in accordance with the
9Th section act 1852, limiting the right of
the city to create an Indebtedness, had right
to expect and to exact all the conditions
against the city.
S15,OOO,9O0 bonds have been issued since
1854 without complying with the conditions
but they are in the hands of bona fde holders,
and the consolidated bondholders have waited
supiney and too long, and they can not now
come into court and say all the issuance Of
the city bonds are illegal, the holders of con-
solidated bonds can't complain now.
These bondholders have not the right to
dictate how the city shall apply the funds
collected. 1t is conceded that he has the
right to see that funds collected to pay inter-
est funds is paid, but the bill goes further
and asks the court to substitute its decision
for that of the legal officers.
The plaintiff has mistaken his remedy. be-
ing without right to demand thahthe funds
of the city be discussed as he sees ct.
The Injunction, as to epjoining the city
from diverting the interest funds, is granted,
but otherwise it is refused.
The following is the closing part Of the de-
cision
Have the holders Of these railroad bonds,
the Water Works bonds, and the consolidated
loan bonds. the right to dictate to the city
how il shall apply its funds raised by taxa
ton? The right Of compliments to demand
that the fund raised for the interest upon their
bonds shall be applied to the payment of their
interest is conceded, but in this bill the COM
plainant goes further and he demands that
other funds not raised specially to pay his in
terest or to pay his principal shall not be ap-
piled to the payment of the other bonds.
In other words, he comes into this court
and asks it to substitute its discretion for the
discretion of the city in the administration of
the finances. Well, now, il he had any lien.
or if there was any trust fund which he had
the right to subject to the payment Of his
principal or interest, the courts would enforce
the trust; if he had lien upon any particu-
lar fund the court would enforce the lien; but
he does not make such claim: he simply
asks that the city be restrained froL1 taking
its own money and applying it to the pay
ment Of its own debts according to it's own
discretion.
In other words, 10 substitute his discretion
and the discretion Of this courtfor the discre-
ton and Judgment Of the city, to whom the
law has confded the administration Of the