The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-12-31
overthrow the city government and result in

He set out at some length the constitutional
objections to the act OF 1852, based upon the
alleged defect In tho title. and the want Of
equality and uniformity In the tax; and he
the act as restricts the Legislative functions Of
future legislatures and the exercise Of such
legislative powers as may be conferred from
time to time by the Legislature upon the
Mayor and Council MS null and void, being be-
yond the power Of the Legislature Of 1852, or
any other year.
Montgomery and others, taxpayers. inter-
vened, admitting the validity Of tho bonds
and Joining relator In his prayer for man
damus, so far as 1t relates to the tax Tor 1878
tested against IL for previous years. OH the
ground that the imposition OF taxes for such
an amount would be ruinous and would lead
Finally the State Of Louisiana interviewed,
claiming to be the owner Of 213 Of the CONSOLE
dated bonds and Joining relator In his demand.
Respondents filed O supplemental answer,
setting out more specifically the constitu-
tlonal objections to the act q 1852; pointing
out alleged defects In the title, and exposing
the inequality and want OF uniformity In the
special tax on real estate and slaves alone.
Relator objected to the fling OF the inter-
ventlons In opposition to Its demand, on the
grounds that interyentlons are NOT allowed IN N
the present one; and that no party can be al
lowed to intervene unless he shows direct
personal interest which would BIO irreparably
Injured by the Judgment unprecedented, and
unless such party could bring direct action
for the purpose Of recovering the object OF his
Intervention
The fern OF action cannot control the
right to intervene. Whenever there Ii suit
. plaintiff on the one side demanding. and 9
defendant on the other side resisting, O third
person may, by timely application to the
court, on proper showing, be made party
I'm order to be entitled TO intervene 1t Is
enough TO have an interest In the success OF
either Of the parties, or an interest opposed
to both" @. p. 800.
The taxpayers, intervenors In this case, are
very much Interested In the success OF re-
spondents. and in opposing the demand Of re,
as tax on their property, as well as on that
OF others The holder Of the premium bonds
Is very much interested In opposing the man
damus and Injunction, which would interfere
to pay the accruing interest on his bonds.
There 10 no analogy between this case and
that OF Roudanez and others, 20 An. 271, In
that case the Legislature having authorized
the Mayor and Administrators OF New Or.
taking the sense Of the people 10 to the levy
OF q tax In aid Of the Pacific Railroad Rouda-
nez and others sought, by Injunction. to pre-.
vent the holding Of the election. We held
ture had the right to submit such a question
to the people whenever Il saw proper to do SO;
that the tax had not yet been authorized; and
that plaintiffs had no interest ard no right to
prevent the holding Of the election, the result
Of which might or might not be the consent OF
the people to the tax.
In this case the direct object Is to have tax
levied and collected at once. We think the
taxpayers had the right to intervene and to
be heard.
Relator also objected to the filing OF the
supplemental answer on tho grounds that,
II the first answer be true, the second could
only be reiteration OF the first, and would,
therefore, be irrelevant; or. Ii the second
answer was different from the first, 1t would
change the Issue, and, therefore, would be i'll
admissible.
The supplemental answer does not conflict
with the original answer. 1t Is an ampiifi-
cation OF the original; It did not retard the
proof than that which was required under the
original. We think 1t was properly received.
The district court made the mandamus
peremptory, but refused the Injunction; sus-
tanned the Intervention Of Montgomery and
others and OF the State Of Louisiana, In so far
as they joined In the prayer OF relator for
mandamus and Injunction, and refused their
prayer In other respects; and ordered the In
tervention OF Weakening and others to be
stricken out, and that OF Hunt to be dismissed
as In case Of non-suit
From this Judgment Weakening and others,
the Mayor and Administrators and Hunt, APP
pealed separately. Relator, In answer to the
appeal, asks that the Judgment be so amended
be affirmed In other respects.
The issues thus presented to us for solution
are Of the utmost gravity, and they have
been argued with great ability by the distin-
Ties. A review OF ali the authorities cited by
them is not possible within the compass OF a
judicial decision, nor can we attempt a Synop-
sis of the points presented and argued in a
discussion which occupied five days.
Many OF the matters discussed are OF great
public interest but some Of them we have no
power to pass upon judicially on this appeal:
No bonds are before us except the consolidated
bonds. True, the holder OF premium bonds
interviewed, but he does not seek to enforce his
bonds, nor does he ask for any judicial recOg-
milton of them. He states that he Is the
holder Of these bonds merely as inducement
for the purpose OF showing his interest and
his right to intervene. The only decree which
we have Jurisdiction to render, under the
pleadings, is such as may be proper In our
judgment, either affirming or reversing the
Judgment appealed from. We shall endeavOr,
therefore, to limit our inquiry to the points
and questions tending to the determination OF
Court-the right Of the relator to the relief
sought by mandamus and injun otion.
Before proceeding further we think it
proper to say that, in our opinion, the iudg-
ment Of the Circuit Court Of the United
Of New Orleans, is not res adjudicata, and
that 1t does not operate as an estoppel
against the Mayor and Administrators on
any Of the questions involved in this case.
Money was collected by the city authorities
for taxes. out Of which certain amount had
been set apart and deposited with the Fiscal
Agent to be applied to the consolidated debt.
The Mayor and Administrators undertook,
in July, 1875, out of the whole of the taxes SO
collected, to pay SO per cent on account Of the
interest due on the entire bonded debt of the
city. il the holders OF the matured coupons
would accept the arrangement. Maenhaut and
others, holders OF consolidated bonds, brought
suit to prevent, by Injunction, the proposed
distribution OF the tax money, and they also
demanded the specific enforcement OF the act
Of 1852.
The court decided that compliments were
entitled to distribution rateably "of the
money actually on deposit to the credit Of the
consolidated coupons overdue and held by
them" To that extent the preliminary in
junction was maintained; and in all other re-
spects the bill was dismissed, "reserving the
right Of the complainants to urge at law the
claims by them herein set up"
Obviously, when the taxpayers had paid