New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-03-31
VOLUME X.--NO. 30I
COURT RECORD.
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1876.


United states Circuit Court.
Present-Hon. w. B. Woods, circuit
Judge. n.
Morris Ranger vs. the city Of New Or
leans ct al.-In equity. Heard on motion
for Injunction. The bill states, in substance,
that the complainant is the owner an6
holder of five bonds, of $1,000 each, dated
May l, 1854, payable in twenty years elter
date, issued by the city OF New orleans, oy
authority of act No. l09 of the acts OF loo4'
authorizing the city Of New Orleans nr9esns 20 s1s
jackson and Great Northern Railroad Com
pany, approved March IA, 1854; and also
one bond for $1,000, dated September l,
1854, due in twenty years after Gate' snu
issued bv the city Of New Orleans, oy
authority of act No. 1OS OF the acts OF 1904,
approved March Is, 1854, authorizing tno
citv Of New Orleans to subscribe TO tne
stock of the New Orleans, Opeiousas ana
Great Western Railroad company.
Comnlainant has brought an action at law
apainet the city on the law side OF this
conrt on these and other bonds OF the same
issue and the coupons attached to them, and
recovered judgments thereon amounting in
the aggregate to $1,000, on which execu-
tions have been issued and returned nu!a
bona.
approved February @, in 1852, Ito con,
solidate the city of New Orleans anu
zion of it's AFFAIRS" which act was in force
when said acts mos. 1OS and lO9) were
passed and said bonds issued, it was pro-
yided that no future debt or loan should be
contracted by the city unless the same
should be authorized by . vote OF ma
iority of the voters Of the city, and no
ordinance creating . debt or loan should
be valid unless Tor some single WORK or
object distinctly specified therein, and
unlees such ordinance 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such ordinance should not be repealed until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 dis.
charged.
Bv the above named acts, Nos. l08 and
lO9, under which the bonds held by com
plainant were issued, it was provided that
The subscription to the stock of said rail-
road companies shoald be payable in the
bonds of the city having twenty years to
run; that Q special tax on real estate ana
slaves should be levied in January of each
wear, sufficient to pay the annual interest
on esid bonds, to be collected in the same
manner a. the cousolida ated loan tax of the
city, and that all ordinances, resolutions or
other acts passed after the first day OF Jan
uary in each year, except an ordinance for
the consolidated loan tax, should be null
and void unless q resolution imposing
special tax for the payment of the interest
on the said two series of bonds should be
first passed. Acts of 1854. PIP. SO. 20.
The same provisions were made by act
the interest on bonds issued to pay for
stock in the Pontchartrain Railroad Com
pany. subscribed by the city of New Or
leans.
The bonds issued by the city to purchase
the waterworks having been issued IN con-
formity to the provisions of an act passed
in 1884, were not required to be issued in
the manner prescribed by the consolidation
act of 1852.
These, except the four classes of
bends, to wit: those issued to take up the
consolidated debt of the city, those issued
to nav for stock in the New Orleans, Jack
son and Great Northern Railroad Com
pany, those issued to pay for stock in the
Pontchartrain Railroad Company, and the
wsterworks bonds, are the only bonds is-
sued by the city which have been issued in
conformity with the aforesaid act, and the
provisions of said acts formed q part
Of the contract between the city
and the holders of said bonde;
that all bonds subsequently issued having
been put forth in violation of the said act
of consolidate are, a. regards the COM
plainant and those holding similar bonds,
null and void and of no effect in law.
The bill then specifies five acts of the
Legislature, commencing with act NO. ~ OF
the acts of 1868, passed in direct cOhtraven-
tion of the thirty seventh section OF the act
of 1852, by which the city has issued bonds
to an amount greater than $l0, ,0OO, 900.
The complaint of the bill is threefOld:
/. That the city is about to divert to other
purposes the tax levied and collected for
the purpose of paying interest upon the
issues to which the bonds held by COM
plainant belong.
2. That the city has by ordinance author
lied the reception of city scrip in payment
of the uncollected taxes belonging to the
railroad interest fund for the years from
1860 to 1873 inclusive.
3. That the city has adopted what it calls
the premium bond plan, whereby it proposes
to pay the principal of bonds not yet due,
leaving the bonds of complainant and
others of the same issue and which are
now due and payable, unpaid.
And the motion now is that the lDJunc-
ton may issue to restrain the city from
doing either of the acts complained Of.
Now, in the case OF Rosalie Maenhaut ct
al. Va. the city of New Orleans. decided
during the present. term Of this court, |
allowed the injunction to restrain the city
from diverting to other purposes the tax
levied and collected for the purpose of pay
ing the interest upon the bonds of the city,
and the case made by this bill is substan-
TALLY the same in this respect as made by
the case of Maenhaut ct al, and as no in
Jury could result to the city from allowing
that part of the Injunction prayed for in
this case, am disposed and. decide that l
will allow the Injunction to 60 to restrain
the city from diverting the fund raised to
pay the interest of the bonds held by the
complainant, and others of the same class,
to any other purpose.
The second branch of the iniunetiO
prayed for by this bill is to restrain the
city from receiving scrip in payment of the
uncOllected taxes belonging to the railroad
interest fund from the year 1860 to 1873 in
elusive. The law under which this fund
was raised provided that there should be q
levy made each year BY the city authori.
ties sufficient to pay the railroad bond
interest tax of that year, and it is made to
appear by affidavits filed in this case that
the interest upon these bonds has been
paid for every year from 1860 up to 1873 in
elusive. And it is made further to appear
that the unpaid taxes belonging to the rail
road interest fund Of these years can not
be collected at all, or at least can only be
collected with great difficulty unless pay
ment is received in city scrip. Under
these circumstances IL appears 10 me very
clear that this motion, addressed as it is to
the discretion of the court, to re-
strain the city from taking. scrip
for these years for the interest
belonging to the railroad bond fund,
should not be allowed. 1t seems to
me that the complainant, in asking this
branch of the injunction, is standing in his
own light. Even if he had the right, which
l think he has not, to demand that the ln-
junction should go for this purpose, it seems
clear that all the complainant can demand
as matter of right is that the tax should
be levied from year to year to pay his in