The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-12-04

q valuable consideration, In open Market they
are protected BY. the .undisputed rule Of com
equities between the maker and the payee-that
they had not to LOCK further than or behind the
the genuineness and legality and validity of
the securities thus purchased
# this rule Of commercial laW Is tappleabl9
The funding act provided that all obligations of
the State might be exchanged for consolidated
dollar, and constituted board to liqui-
date these obligations, and give to the
holders Of any valid bond Or warrant,
the right to. apply 10 any proper court for re-
Lief, Acts of 1874. y. SO. In the following year
the supplemental funding act enumerate.1
declared questioned and doubted as 70 their
legality and validity and expressly and in
ter 6dnd n fbat the 9ard 9m funding any OF
clared that they were valid obligations, and that
they had been issued in conformity to law. and
for q valid consideration.
who are purchasers before maturity for a vau-
able, consideration, are entitled to have their
them, why should the General Assembly
Formally of obtaining decree from
bonds 'ou Or What what avail is an inoury
touching the validity of bond, or its issuance
in conformity to law if the fact that it is invalid
and that it was not issued in conformity to law
will not affect the rights of the holder? Clearly,
this rule Of commercial law does not apply
here. The State can be sued in her own courts
only by her permission and in the manner and
for the purposes indicated by her. The sup
elemental funding act require parties who
Besd t e afSf nst to es ii f2" g sdo 6G
consideration and valid issue in conformity to
law of the bonds offered for funding. and re-
stricted this court to an ascertanment of the
possession of these requisites by these bonds.
1t is that law. therefore, that must be our guide
and not the general commercial law. in actions
like the present. We have a substantial inquiry
to make. The holders of these questioned
bonds must show at1irmatively. that they have
all of the requisites reeted in the at of 1876 as
necessary to obtain decree of this court. One
of these is that they must be issued in conform
ity TO law: We're these bonds thus issued?
enca re ADJ f M he Ine agfve
lied to issue in favor of the Bnuf and Crocodile
Navigation Company domiciled In the parish
the State to the amount of eighty thousand dol
lars" The bonds We're not I us issued. They
are payable to II, c. Warmoth or bearer. The
the company shall have power TO- sell or pledge
the bonds, but neither of these officers is made
the payee for the company, but they are signed
payable to him in his individual capacity.
1t would be difficult to imagine case where
the parties would be more entitled to equitable
relief than this. Their good faith is unques-
toned. The English holders purchased for
trust fund. They invested in these bonds rely
Ing upon the good faith of the State, whose seal
attested their genuineness, and we are asked,
not unreasonably, to assist in unfolding that
department of the State. Tho policy or i'm
such as the funding bill of 1874, is now beyond
our inquiry; Too many and too, grave eompi,,
that question. But the act of 1875 emanated
from the same source, and that vet imposes
upon us the duty and the necessity Of ascertain
ing whether any of the bonds enumerated in it
wanting in OF the qualities essential tn
enttle them TO be funded. We think the bonds
of the plaintiffs and intervenor are wanting in
formity to law. And the lack of this quality was
patent.
The act which authorized the issuance of the
bonds is printed in full on the reverse of each
bond. Each purchaser, when the bond was Of
fered to him, could read for himself the eondi-
tions and form prescribed by the act II q more
minute examination was made, he would fail TO
discover from the terms of the act what il was
that the Legislature of Louisiana was intend
ing a wea was H e w2d
on, but there is no indication beyond thai. The
act bore on its frontlet Enthusiastically the warn
ing, Caredt enptor.
The Judgment from which this appeal was
taken was rendered by the Third District Court
Of this city,, 1t is now contended ON behalf Of
without the jurisdiction of that court: 1t de-
rives that jurisdiction from an act of the pres
ent year, Acts 1911 2t8 The Attorney General
The constitution confers upon the General
Assembly the power to establish as many dis
trct courts in the parish of Orleans as the pub
lie interest may require. Until otherwise pro-
vided seven are constituted. and to the Third is
given exclusive Jurisdiction of appeals from
justices Of the peace. These seven courts shall
also have such further jurisdiction, not incon-
sistent Herewith. as shall be conferred by law.
Art. SO.
It is not inconsistent to enlarge the iurisdic-
ton of one of these courts. The Third Court
must have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals
from justices of the peace but this exclusive
jurisdiction of a particular class does not pre-
clude it from having concurrent jurisdiction
with other courts of another class The dfvis-
ion of assignment of jurisdiction made in the
constitution must remain until otherwise pro-
vided, and the use of this phrase implies that
another assignment may be made. The Legis;
lature has given to the Third Court original
concurrent jurisdiction with the Fourth. Fifth
and Sixth, in certain cases, and this is one of
them.
II is therefore ordered adiudged and decreed
that the JUDGMENT Of the lower court is avoided
and reversed aud it is now decreed that the
bonds held by the plaintiffs and intervenor are
not valid obligations of the State OF Louisiana,
and that they were not issued in conformity to
law 1t is further ordered that these parties
pay the costs of both courts.
Justices Mari, DeBlane and Spencer read con-
curing opinions.