New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-18

amounting to $3.50, 200, in eontrsventios
Of the constitutional amendment then in
force.
As there is no obligation resulting from
tho acts Of 1869 and 1870 in regard to the
State guaranteeing second mortgage bonds
of said company, there IL NO debt due said
company or those holding under il. Az the
bonds in suit do not represent debt in
CURED prior to the constitutional amend
ment, for there was none, they merely evil
dence q debt contracted since then and in
violation Of said amendment. Neither the
Governor nor the General Assembly had
authority in 1871 to issue s., 500, 900 Of State
bonds in payment of q subscription for
stock then made. Nor had they authority
to substitute bonds of the State, uncondi-
tional obligations, for the conditional Obli-
cation arising from the legislation of 1869
and 1870, prior to the happening Of the CON-
ditiOns precedent in said acts.
As these bonds bear date subsequent to
the adoption of the constitutional amend
ment, all persons acquiring them are
charged with notice of the existence and
effect of that amendment; they are charged
with notice that in 1871 it was not in the
power Of the General Assembly and the
Governor to bind the State by the Issue of
these bonds az q substitute for the Obliga-
ton to indOrse the second mortgage bonds
of the New Orleans, Mobile and Chatta-
nooga Railroad Company, because said
obligation was conditional, and it could
only become binding on the State upon the
happening of the conditions precedent. and
they might never happen. The issue Of
these bonds as q substitute for q debt that
did not exist, and that might never exist,
was to all intents and purposes the creation
of a debt in 1871 in intervention of the
constitutional amendment.
1t is therefore ordered that the Judgment
herein perpetuating the injunction and de-
% of the acts of 1877 amounting to 81, soc, 900,
be affirmed, appellants paying costs of ap.
peal.
The Chief Justice dissents and reserves
the right to fill his reason hereafter.
Justice Talaferr0 concurring. The bonds
were issued without the authority and
against the authority of the State, which
had prohibited the increase of the public
debt. The State. through it's amendment
to the constitution, in 1870, peremptOrily
forbade any increase. The Legislature H.
sued these bonds in violation Of the consti-
tutiOnal provision prohibiting an increase
of the public debt. The issuing the bonds
was an increase of the debt. if the payment
of them could be enforced. But Whatever
is done in violation of p.ohibitory law is
null, and can have no effect. State
ex rel. Samuel Smith vs. State Treas
urer, g A., 267; G. c., IL. Ab initio they
were null, and no vitality or force could be
infused into them by their falling into the
hands of third holders. Instruments Of the
kind have not the essential properties OF
promissory notes, under the law, and even
securities of the latter kind are vitiated in
the hands Of bona tide holders before matu-
rlty, and without notice, where the consid-
aration is unlawful l Pars. Notes and
Bills, 2l2, 2l3. concur in the decree just
read.
No. 1896. Andrew Parle, appellant, vs.
Mrs. Jane D'Arcy.-FrOm Fourth District
Court. No eervitude existed to prevent
the erection Of fence on defendant's own
lot. Judgment annulled and plaintiffs de.
mand rejected.
No. 5l3l. Lacey & Butler, appellants, W..
police jury Of st. Bernard.-FrOm Second
Judicial District. Plaintiffs appealed from
judgment of $500 in their favor for legal
services. The contract of the police jury
was invalid. Il. s., 1856. But the defend
ant neither appealed nor answered. The
request in the brief to reject the claim is not
noticed. Pleadings can not be made in a
brief or argument Of counsel. Judgment
affirmed.
No. CLIO City of New Orleans, appellant,
vs.. H. s. Buckner.-From Superior District
Court Of New Orleans. Tax suit. Judg-
ment annulled, and decrePd that plaintiff
receive of defendant $1,000. with ten per
interes ct from March 81, 1875, and all costs.
No. 472l. f. Hiestand Va. City of New
Orleans. sppellant.-From Superior Dis
trict Court of New Orleans. Suit for
$267 30 for commission on taxes collected.
Is A. Cos. Judgment annulled and plain
ttf's demand rejected, he having no claim
on collections made by the Treasurer after
February !, 1868.
BY JUSTICE MORGAN.
No 473O. Succession Of Mary Carroll,
deceased wife of j. NJ. Shafer, appellant
From Second District Court Of New Or
leans. Judgment affirmed.
No $500. Felix Godschalk VS.. Henry
Court. See Redwitz VS.. judge of Sixth Dis
trict Court, opinion book No. IS. Motion
to dismiss refused.
No 5000. Mrs. Widow j. c. De Romes VS.
the Levee Steam Cotton Press. appellants.
From Superior District COurt.-1n the ab-
sence Of q judge of district court of Or
leans, another judge of that parish may
grant an appeal from a decision of the
former Judge. Section ID, act No. 255, Of
1855. Motion to dismiss denied.
Justice Taliaferro, Chief Justice Lude-
ling concurring, dissents.
Superior District Court.
State ex rel L. C. Roudanez vs.. city of
New Orleans. to prevent the
city from carrying out the provisions of
act No. 20 of 1876 dissolved and suit dis
missed.
State ex rel. New Orleans Pacific rail.
road vs.. same.-Mandamus to compel the
carrying out Of the provisions of act No 20
of 1876, refused as premature. Right OF
petitioner to renew the writ in case the
City Council refuse to submit the act to the
people, reserved without prejudice.
State ex rel. w. B. Merchant vs. NJ.
JEFF Thompson, Chief State Engineer.
Same vs.. George B. johnson, State Aud
observation-disclosures on petition for arrears of
salary as assistant engineer refused.
Christian Hellstein vs.. Mayor, ETC., and
Board of Metropolitan POlice.-PetitiOner
alleges he keeps an orderly coffeehouse,
the Grand Central, at the corner of Char
tres and Cont streets; that license of
$3.50 is demanded, which il excessive, and
that defendants will illegally close his es-
tablishment unless prevented. Mandamus
issued on bond of $500.
State ex rel. Carondelet Canal and
Navigation Company Va. New Orleans
Realtors allege judgment of $l2,50O
against the drainage commissioners OF the
First District; that it is registered with
the Administrator of Public Accounts; that
it is the duty of the city to lay tax to pay
it, and asks that it be compelled to. Rule
to show cause April "a granted.
r. G. Higgins VS.. New Orleans Gaslight
Congratulations, resident Of Weeks
burg, alleges ownership Of 500 shares of the
Crescent City Gaslight Company before the
consolidation; that March 80, 1875, he was
called on to pay seventy mine and one half
per cent or forfeit his stock; that he called
at the Office, but no one was there cOmpe-
tent to receive his money; that April 9 there
was meeting, and he refused admission as
no longer . stakeholder; that the assess
ment was excessive; that in consolidation
the 100000 stock was exchanged under
act No. 158 of December IL, 1874, for
81, 25O, 900; that his forfeiture was illegal;