The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-03
A CARD.
CITY CONSOLIDATED BOND MATTER

Abstract from the decision rendered by Judge
Woods, in the cause of ROsalie Maenhaut
and others VS.. the city OF New Orleans and
others:
81 am of opinion that the act of 1859, above
mentioned contains q contract udlid and
binding on the city, and that the bondholders
are entitled to exact the substantial perform
ance of the contract, | have SO held upon the
former hearing of the case, Maenhaut ct al
VS.. the. city Of New Orleans, 2 Woods, lob.
The thirty-seventh section OF the act of 1862,
constituting, rs itdoes, o contract between the
city and the bondholders, stands unaffected
by any subsequent legislation that seeks to
impair or repeal its provisions. But the rem
edy Of the complainants to enforce their con-
tract is clearly not in equity, but at law, by
the recovery Of q Judgment on their coupons
and bonds, and by the writ of mandamus
commanding the levy and collection of the
tax required by law. The relief at h,p is
plain, adequate and complete, end equity can
not be res0rted to-"
ABSTRACT
from the decision rendered by Judge Billings
in the case of Morris Ranger VS.. the Mayor
and Common Council of New Orleans, dated
'But among the statutes Of the State with
reference to the city of New Orleans, and
among the general statutes of the State, are
found acts that give the absence of any par
ticular means OF payment in o city ordi-
nance creating debt, special significance
THE act Of 1862, No 81. entitled An act to
consolidate the city Of Ne1o Orleans, and pro-
3D. contains he fotlo,cing provision:
And no ordinance of the city OF New Or
leans) creating debt or loan shall be valid
unless for some single object or work dis
tnctly specified therein, and unless such or
dinance shall provide ways and means for
during the whole time for which said debt or
loan shall be contracted, and for the full and
punctual discharge at maturity Of the capital
borrowed or the debt incurred
ABSTRACT " q
from the report Of Judge r. Wharton Collens,
,1,special, master in chancery," approved by
Judge Woods.
XXI; On all points oGinquiry generally,
report,
q. That the act Of 1852 was assigned as an
irrevocable check and safeguard for the bene-
fit and advantage of the holders Of the con-
soidated bonds. No debt could be contracted
except according to it's provisions. The hold
ers of the bonds are entitled to precedence in
the collection Of taxes on lands and slaves,
and to the suppression of any demand for
payment OF any subsequent debts that would
interfere with or prevent the payment of the
consolidated debt, unless such subsequent
debt was contracted upon compliance with
the terms and conditions of the act Of 1856"
IN THE CASE OF MAENIIAUT VS.. NEW ORLEANS,
before the United States Circuit Court for
Louisiana, Judge Woods, in the written rea-
sons assigned by him for Judgment, uses the
following language:
'sIn the argument upon the motion for in
junction it was claimed by counsel for the city
that the act Of 1852 was in violation of the
constitution of 1916, which was in force when
that act was passed, and which declared (arti-
Gle 12O that taxation shall be equal and uni
form throughout the State. The provision of
this act of 1862, which is deemed to contra
vene this constitutional requirement. Is this:
The rate per cent of said tax in each munich
pality shall be in proportion to the indebted
ness Of each / cannot see any conflict be-
t,Ueen the ld,p and the constitution. AS at pres
ent advised, l do not think the objection to
the law we'll founded