The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-04-15
THE samEAT HOMO CASE.

/ THE GREAT HOND CASE.
Judge Weeds Decision Rendered In the
United states Circuit Court.
| United States Creuit Court, District Of Louisi-
/ ana.-Hosste Maenhaut ct al vs.. the city OF New
Orleans equity. Mr.. J hn A. OamPbell and
jonas City Attorney, and Mr.. H. q. Miller, for
| defendant. Woods, Circuit Judgs.
| The complainants are holders OF bends issued
by the city OF New Oflears by authority Of the
| 97th section Of the act OF the Legislature, ap-
proved February 40. 1861. The bonds 80 isfusd
represent what IL designated az the consolidated
| debt Of New Orleans. The act declares that s'the
Common Council shall annually. In the month of
| January, pass an ordinance TO raise the sum Of
5000. 600 tthe stifn was increased by an act ap.
| proved The same day TO the sum Of $3.50 ,0OO) by
special tan on real estate and slaves to be called
| the consolidated loan tax. At
the end OF each and every year. any surplus Of the
| consolidated loan tar remaining In the treasury
after The payment oil al the interest and the ex-
| penses OF the management Of the debt, shall be
applied to the purchase from the lowest bidder OF
| such bonds issued under this act az have the
| shortest time TO run" The act further provides
| that the ordinances, resolutions or other acts
| passed bs the City Council after the first day OF
January In each year, shall he null aud void, I'M
less The ordinsnce importing The consolidation
loan Ian shall have be previously passed The
act further provided that after it's passage oh.
legation or evidence OF debt of any desorip ion
Whatever. except those then authorised should
be ssusd by the city OF New Orleans, or under it's
authority, nor should any loan be contracted TN
less the same should be authorized ty n vote OF
majority OF the qualified voters OF said city
About Gil, OF o, 600 in bonds were issued under
aubhori VI this pet Of which they are still out
standing over Al, $4,000. and the compainants
hold part Of this Issue OF bonds.
The bill charged that there had been collected
by the city authorities, aud depo tied TO the
tnft Euc ilut a1 .f
900 and asked for an iDjuno N restraining the
city from diyerting his fund to any other pur.
pose than the payment OF the Interest on tbe oUn-
solidated loan.
1t appears from the report of tho master thst
for long peiod after the passage OF the act d
1862 coeo ions OF taxes we're made and applied
with regularity under the provisions OF the 37th
section OF the act; subsequently, that for mum
Der OF years there WAS 10 attempt TO levy sud
collect the tax required by said section, that
large sums collected under this act were lnsap-
piled and used by the city for other purp eos
than those prescribed by the act. hat in 1879 |
levy aud collection OF the tax fer the sinking |
fund to pay the principal of the consolidated |
bonds. but provided for the payment Of tho in
terest,
Finally, in 1876. the Legislature passed an aot |
authorizing what was called the premium bond |
plan for paying the city debt, and repeating all |
laws for the levy and SELECTION OF the tax author
lied and required by the act Of 1852
y
allowed 40 prayed In the bill forblddng the city |
from dverting to any other object The taxes col
leeted by virtue OF the act of 1863 for the payment
Of the interest on the consolidated loan, and the
fund 80 collected has been applied as required by
law and the rights of the eomplainants.
On this, the final hearing, it is moved that the |
court decree that complsinants are entitled :
l. To specific performance Of their contract
with the city, contained in section 81 OF the act
Of 1879; Q. To the levy collection and exclusive
application 10 the payment Of the principal and
interest OF their bonds Of the sum Of $780, 900 to
be laid upon the real estate OF the city; 0. To
priority OF payment out OF the taxes raised by
the city upon the real estate. to the extent of
$3.50 000 aud 4. To an injunction restraining the
city from applying any OF its revenues raised or
hereafter to be raised by levy on real estate to
the payment of any other debt or demand autil
claim as bondholdsrs have been
fully provided for and satisfied. l.
Ne far rs the frEt two OF these demands Of the
are concerned, atm OF opinion that
the act OF 1862 above mentioned, contains o con.
tract valid and binding on Tho city, and that the
bondhoders are on lied to exact the subs antia
performance OF the contract. have so held upon
The former hearing Of the case. Maenhau5 ct al.
Va. the city Of New Orleans, 2 Woods, 10S.
The 37th section Of the act ol 1862, eonstitu-
tntng, as 1t does, q contract between the city
aud the bondholders, stands unaffected by any
subsequent legislatiop that seeks to impair or
repeal its provisions. Bnt the remedy OF the
compliments to enforce their oonrao is clearly
not III equity, but at law, by the recovery of a
Judgment on their coupons and bonds. aud by
the writ of mandsmus commanding The levy and
collection oil the tax required by law. The relief
nj law Ia plain, adequate and complete, and
equity cannot be resorted to.
Heine Va. the Levee Commissioners, 10 Wall.
G55.
The claim that the oomplainants are entitled
to priority OF payment cut OF all taxes ra,sed on
real estate, and to an injunction forbidding the
application OF taxes 80 raised to any purpose
until their claims are satisfied, cannot