New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-03-31

anOW2
money or legal tender currency tnoy
can not he collected at all. l must, there
fore decline to allow the Injunction 10 60
to reatrain the city from recelvlnR city
scr;n in navment of it's uncollected tax.
The third branch of the injunction
asked for is that the city may be restrained
from applying the funds collected by taxa
ton to the payment OF the oonos not YET
dne. while it leaves the bonds of the COM
niainant. which are due, unpaid and un-
provided for.
In the case of Maenhaut ct al. vs the c!ty
of New Orleans, expressed the opinion,
and still adhere to it, that the provisions
of the thirty.seventh section OF the act OF
l852-that act being, in fact, the charter Oh
the city, providing how the debts OF tne
city shall in future be created, ana nmlIlng
the power of the city in the prooucnon VI
debts-formed q part OF the contfact w,
tween the city and those who receiveu anu
held the consolidated debt, and the oon9s
issued by authority of the provisions OF the
acts Nos. lOS and l09 of the year 1894. In
M Judgment the holders of the bonds under
these two acts had the right to demand OF
the city. in accordance with the terms OF
the thirty-seventh section of the act OF loo2,
that no further debt or loan should be con-
tracted by the city unless the same should
be authorized by the vote OF the majority OF
the voters of the city, and no ordinance
creating debt or loan should be valid I'M
less for some single work or object distlnc!-
ly specified therein, and unless such 0rdl-
nance should provide ways and means tor
the payment thereof, and such ordinance
should not be repealed until the principal
and interest of the capital borrowed should
be fully paid and discharged. :,
Now, while the holders of these railroad
bonds, consolidated bonds, and waterworks
bonds had the right to exact these con-
ditions of the city, they have not seen Mt to
do GO, unless We consider this nugatlon as
taken upon the part of these bondholdere
that these conditions should be enforced:
According to the averments OF the bill,
bonds to the amount of SIC, ,0OO, 900, or 40
stated in the argument SIS 900, have
been issued since the acts of 1854, not in &C
oordance with the terms of these acts. These
bonds, it is fair to presume, are in the hands
of bona fde holders, and being in the hands
of bona tide holders, and the city having
authority to issue bonds, the bona tide hold
ers have the right to presume that the CON
diti0ns precedent have been complied with,
and these bonds are valid and binding
upon the city in their hands.
Now the holders of the consolidated debt
bonds, and of the railroad bonds, and Of
the Waterworks bonds, had their remedy
to restrain the city from issuing these un-
authorized bonds, but they did not re-
sort to it. They have waited supinely
until this large mass of bonds
has been issued by the city in violation, ss
I think, of their rights, and until these
bonds have passed into the hands OF bona
fide holders, and it is now too late for them
to set up any claim that these bonds are in
valid and have no rights a. against them or
against the city.
These hondh0lders were asleep when they
should have been awake. They should
have looked after their interests when the
issue of these bonds was in feri, and not
to have waited until they tell into the
hands of innocent holders. So that.
in my judgment, these bonds are
binding now upon the city, and
they are good as against the holders OF the
the Water rwOrks bonds.
Now, the question submitted to the court
ie, have the holders of theee bonds which
have lust named-the railroad bonds, the
Waterworks 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 to demand that the fund
raised for tho interest upon their bonds
shall be applied to the payment of their
interest, is conceded; but in this
bill the complainant goes further,
AuO 40 ucm0uuo IA6U VtuCA AuAuCS AoV
raised specially to pay his interest or to
pay his principal shall not be applied to
the payment Of the other bonds; in other
words, he comes into this court and asks
the court to substitute its discretion for the
discretion OF the officers of the city in the
administration Of the finances. Well, now,
if 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 court would enforce the trust; if he
had lien upon any particular fund the
court wonld enforce the lien; but he
does not make such claim. He
simply asks that the city be restrained
from taking its own money and apply
ing it to the payment of its own debts
according to its own discretion; in other
words, to substitute his discretion, and the
discretion of this court, for the discretion
and Judgment Of the officers OF the city, to
whom the law has confided the administra-
ton of the city finances. 1t seems to me
remedy. He has his bonds and Judgment
upon them. and he has the right to have q
tax levied to pay the principal and interest
upon these bonds. That is the only
right he has, and that right is
only to be secured by the common
law remedy of mandamus by applying to
this court; but he has no right to demand
that the fund raised by the city, not for the
payment of the principal and interest of
his bonds, should be made by the city in
it's own discretion.
l will allow the injunction to 60 to pre-
vent the city from paying any OF the money
collected for the purpose of paying any IN,
terest on the bonds Of the complainant and
others holding like bonds, and to prevent
such money being applied to the payment
of any other debt of the city; but must
decline to restrain the city from the recep-
ton of scrip in payment of the interest tax
upon all the years running from 1861 to
1873, and must decline to interfere with the
premium bond plan, by eDjoining the city
from paying it's debts as it pleases.
Thomas Pickles vs. city of New Orleans.
On contract to furnish the city with coal
oil. $4,000 for February being due. PLAIN
tiff is only an ordinary creditor. Before
an Injunction can issue restraining the CITY
from receiving Metropolitan warrants q
Judgment at law must be obtained. The
Supreme Court has decided the city is COM
PEELED to receive Metropolitan warrants.
Injunction refused.
Superior District Court.
Hon. B. L. Lynch presiding in the ab-
sence of Judge Hawkins.
w. w. Walker vs. city Of New Orleans
Petitioner. owner of five floats, claims that
the tax of 81 so, $40 or SIS each, is not uni
form on those who are in that business;
that ordinance No. 1919, sections sixty nine
and seventy three, are unconstitutional,
and that the city will seize his property TOR
licenses and penalties unless restrained.
r.