The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-07-29
IMPORTANT DECISION.
The BOND Question Decided Mt Monroe
Lately,

The bond Question Decided Mt aDnroe
Lately.
The following interesting decision was received
here yesterday:
The State ex rel. o. J. Forstall Va. the Board
OF Lquids,ion-Appeal from the Fifth District
Court for the parish Of Orleans. Mr.. Chief JUS
tice Manning delivered the opinion and decree of
the court in the words and figures following, to
wit:
The relator alleges that he holds with full
power to fund $40 bends OF the State for $500
each, with their coupons issued undeu the ACT Of
February Is, 1870, and SIS bonds OF the State for
$1,000 each, with coupons, issued under the act Of
March 20, 1867, all Of which are known and
commonly, designated IS Levee Bonds,
and valid obligations OF the State and
were issued for valuable consideration; he
| AYERS that these bonds have been thus declared
by the Supreme Court OF This State as Is required
by the act Of May II, 1875, and he has therefore
the right to have these bonds exchanged for the
consolidated bonds of the State; he represented
that the judgment of the Supreme Court has
| been pronounced in the suit in which the present
| relator was party, and which, with tn opinion
OF the court accompanying the decree, was pub
lished in the 9Th Annual Report OF this court
| page SIT: he further AYERS that the Board of
Liquidation refused to fund the bonds presented
by him for that purpose, notwithstanding this
final decree Of the supreme Court, and he PRAYED
and obtained writ OF mandamus to compel the
funding.
Respondent, answering to the rule to show
cause why the mandamus should not be made
peremptory, denies that these bonds are valid
obligations OF the State, or that they were issued
in conformity to law, and for valid copsidera-
ton, and alleges that the Board OF Liquidators
is p' ohibited from funding these bonds by the act
OF 1875, until every one Of them has been de-.
clared valid by the Supreme Court and legally is
kBued and that no such decree has ever been OBJ
tanned upon these bonts
The lower court refused to make the man
damus peremptory and the relator appeals.
The main question for our decision is, whether
| the legislative requirement contained in the act
OF May II, 1875, imposes upon the Board of
Liquidation the duty Of refusing to fund any
| bond until it has been verified by special de-
cree OF the court as legal and valid and that it
was issued in conformity to law, and not in viola
ton OF the Federal or State constitution, and had
valid consideration, or whether such de-
cree rendered upon any bond has relation to all
others OF the same issue series. And it is
! therefore in effect that final decree which that
| act makes the duty CT the board to require.
In May. 1875, the present reator applied for a
| mandamus to compel the funding Of certain
enumerated bends issued under the act Of Feb
| ruary 25, 1870, and March 26, 1867, alleging
| that the Board of liquidation has refused to
| fund them. and further averring that the act of
| ment above recited was null. In that suit he
prayed that that act be declared unconstitutional
and that the board be commanded to fund the
| bonds mentioned in his petition.
IA0 supreme COuTt pronounced the act OF 1878
constitutional, thereby affirming that the duty of
the board was to refuse to fund the bonds of re-
lator until they had been declared legal and valid
obligations Of the State by final decree Of that
court, and then proceeded to make that decree
/ quoad the bonds Of the relator. but restricting
its opinion. ''By formal expression we desire to
be distinctly understood that we are expressing
! no opinion upon the validity Of any bonds except
! those before and in the hands of the relator"
State e1 rel. Forstall vs.. Board of Liquidation,
81 An, page $50.
Manifestly this is not the final decree required
by the act OF 1915, which can be invoked by the
| relator as the authority to the Board of Lauida-
ton to fund the bonds now presented. The de-
cree repels such use of it in express language,
apparently anticipating that the reator might
so construe the language of the court as to JUS
tlfy him in demanding the funding of all the
other BONDS of same series or issue as those in
e.uded in that Decree and was taken to inform
him and the board thai such const, uction was
condemned beforehand
The relator then, is the relater now; his prayer
now ls that the board be commanded to fund
each and all Of the above described bonds as be-
longing to those issues, covered by the Judgment
OF the Supreme Court, rendered in the suit. We
have seen that the Judgment of the Supreme
Court expressly excluded from its operations
these and all other bonds, except those embraced
in that suit. The board had not before them
that final decree 81 the act Of 1875 required, and