The New Orleans Democrat., 1876-05-26
SUPREME COUur DECISIONS.
THURSDAY, May 25, 1876.


No. e3ls. l.. G. Roudanez et ais. VS. Judge D. /
Lynch. Of superior District Court, The ralator
rnloined the Mayor and Administrators Of New
Orleans from executing act No 40 of the acts o
tars, which authorizes the levy Of a tax Of one
half Of one per cont annually in aid of the New
Orleans Pacific Railroad Company. to be col
ieeted on condition 1t is sanctioned by majoritl
~ the regist red vnters, on the ground that sait
statute IL uDconsitu ional. The Railroad Com
pany intcrveDed aud moved to dissolve the in
junction, which was done. kelators then applied
or q suspensive appeal, which WAS denied.
Thsreupon they applied to this court fol
'nandamus. which vas granted ani rendered
he ralators presented to the Judge of the Supe
3ior District Court this decree. he granted q aus
5ensive appeal, but declined 70 flx a return day
md the amou It OF the bond. Realtors then ten
iercd bond In the sum of $1,000 in favor Of the
'lerk and conditioned according to law.
The Judge. howcvor. rendered the following
order.
In granting suapensivo appeal In this case
I, = complianee with pnremptory randamu4
ssued by the Honorable supreme Court, | deem
my duty under the doetrine and action of that
1ourt IN th, case OF the Stnte w. the
udge OF the Fifth District Court. Ia La, ie7.
nd alao in the resent case OF Temtle 4
oons the Judge VI the Superior Dis
rlet Court, require appellants 10 fie trih The
'le;'k at Mts Court their additional bond IN taro,.
Z the taferenoF, rM good and sufficient seen ify
\ soitdo, conditioned that said appellants shall
~ such aumtges ds ne nt1penor. The said Ne,r
'itedns Pacific Raiboad 'on'pany may sustain
B case Il shoyli De decided that he Injunction
fFefofore obtained has been tr1ongf,iiiU sued Ou
nd illegally and unawfully kept In force. II Is
ierefore ordered tina the said intervenor. the
ew Orleans Pacific Railroad Company appear
sfore this court on saturday. 21th instant. q, ii
clock u M. and nreaent their proof IA tn the
robablo injury the said Company may sustain
tho issuance ~ said innnftion and ita being
spt In iorca 10y virtue pf said suspensive app al
IL further ordered that plRiutiffs and appel
at' he not To ! to he present at the taking Il
ul testimony. and ~ present to the court such
yidenee as they may have to offer in the pre-
tises."
n a.
fhnsive appeal 8sint the return day and the
a mount Of the boud. In pursuance of the pnr-
nptory ordei OF this court. here is no law
auiring IN al iitional bond in favor of the in
rvenor. to scrure him from damages resulting
ON the granting Of the Injunction. When the
,dgc granted the injnnt on. he fixed the bond
ldge had no authority 10 fix other conditions
an those IRE -trihed by law. In order that the
latoIs might have the constitutional right of
'posA. The cRsta oited by the Judge are not
% the one now before the court. Relators have
t enjotned the execution Of q mortgage. nor
We they re:trsin'd tho disposition Of properly
.tute looking to the enforcement OF tax. on
ground that u 10 unconstitutional. The col
tion q the tax T. susps dsd merely BY opera
destroyed, and wo SEQ no reason for n bond
damages cther than the one that was given
zen tho Injunction issued.
We cAnnct say In advance of a hearing Of the
use that the Judge erred in issuing the inunc-
n. or that the bond he exacted In this case il
,njunaion. We think The bond of $1,000 ten.
red by relaiors was sufficient. and "a auspen- |
appeal should have been granted on a bond |
that aum with good aud solvent sncuritiea
is. therefore. ordered that the mandamus |
prohibition be made peremptory and per- |
tual. and that tho Judge grant relators sus- |
nsive appeal on giving bond in the sum Of |
Uo with good and sufficient security, and that |
) fix return day as required by law. tSee 20
:, los. sss
Morgan. J., dissenting. The court issued m
der TO the Dt-., lot Judge to grant the plaintfs
.tion for this order we were asked to tix the
mount of the bond. This we declined to do
egranted tho order with the condition that the
aint ffs should furnish bond conditioned ae-
riding TO law. The Judge has oheyed our man
tte. Ho has granted tho appeal. But ~ to the
mount N bond TO ba given. he has postponed
ton unit he should be satisfied by evidence
nat tho amount should be- | see nothing In
IL of which tho plaintiffs ave any causo Ia
mpalu. The Judge could have fixed the
ainttfs would have applied to us for relief 50
ey could noN. II. after hea ing testimony. the
go should TX too large IN amount In other
.ris the exercise OF biA q secretion would he
hlect e. our review. "A the case now stands.
10 not see why wa should interfere The ap-
ication should be dsmssed
Howell j.. d-se"tlpg | think the answer of
> nudge - quo shows good grounds why the
lndamus Hh uld not be made perem ptory Tho
tge has net refused 10 accept bond and grant
,appeal; but mas only fixed a day for hearing
tdeDce on the question OF injury or damage
may be causod r may result to appelleee
apne !. which, uron the principles annonnc-
in the rases Of State ex rel. Waldron VS. Judge
First District Court. ~ l., l6I, State ex rel
ons ~. Judge Of SUPERIOR District Court tnot
portedl. he Vas authorized to do, the bond of
lrse. to be drawn according to law