The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-01-01
THE SOUTHERN BANK CASE.

.
THE SOUTHERN BANK CASE.
Mr.. Justice Mari, as the organ Of the
Supreme Court, has rendered long and elab-
crate. decision In the Southern Bank case,
wherein, after q clear and comprehensive
statement OF all the legislation bearing upon
the matters at issue, the judgment OF the
lower court Is reversed.
Al u well known, the Southern Bank, as the
holder Of certain consolidated bonds Issued
under the act Of 1862, proceeded by mandamus
TO compel the city to levy and collect the
special tax provided for by the act of 1862, and
asked an Injunction forbidding the levy and
collection OF any other tax until this special
tax shall have been provided for.
The city replied by excepting to the juris-
dictiOn OF the court; by answering that under
the premium bond act they were forbidden to
levy and collect the special tax, or any other,
except TO pay premium bonds; that section 81
OF the act Of 1862 is unconstitutional: /. Be
cause the objects Of that section are not set
forth In the title, rs required by section lis Of
the constitution Of 1916. Q. Because the spe-
clal tax therein provided for is to be assessed
on real estate and slaves alone, and because
the rate Of taxation In each municipality IL
based on the relative debt OF each at the time
Of the consolidation Of these municipalities.
and not on the relative value Of property. as
is required by article 127 OF the constitution Of
1S45, which declares that all taxation shall be
equal and uniform.
There are . number Of lnterventions. but
these all take issue With or join one side or the
other, and are consequently disposed Of by the
Judgment between the principals to the suit
The first point passed upon by the court Is
an exception on the part Of the Southern
Bank, plaintiff. to the supplemental answer
Of the city, on the ground Of iteration and lr-
relevancy, or, II material, that II changed the
issue. This exception was oyerruled and
the supplemental answer ordered to stand.
The plaintiff also objected to the filing Of the
various interventions for lack Of such per-
sonal interest as justified the Intervention OF
third parties. This exception was also over
ruled, and, In this respect, the Judgment Of
the lower court reversed. In regard to the
Judgment Of the United States Circuit Court
In the Maenhaut case, the court says that it
II not res jadicata and does not operate as an
estoppsl against the city on any OF the ques-
lions involved In this case, as Is pleaded by
the plaintiff. In that case the special
tax had been collected and set apart
for the benefit Of the consolidated debt
The city proposed to apply this fund, 30 col
lected and destined, to the payment, ratably,
Of all bonds Of the city. Maenhaut and others
objected to this distribution, and sued out an
Injunction to forbid IL. To this extent the In
junction was sustained. upon the ground that
the city had no right to divert fund col |
lectedand set aside for specific purpose. In |
the later case Of vignier, 1t was held that the |
Maenhaut decision did not conclude the city, |
and the mandamus prayed for by the holders |
Of consolidated bonds to compel the levy and |
collection Of the special tax was refused.
After clearing away all these minor issues |
the court proceeds to dispose OF the constitu-
tionality Of the act Of 1852. The first excep-
lion, that this act Is unconstitutional, be- |
cause the subject matter and objects thereof |
are not set forth in the title, Is overruled.
In regard to the second point the court de- |
cides that the special tax provided for in the
act Of 1852 Is not equal and uniform, and Is, |
unconstitutional. The act OF March |
;. 1886, which divided the city into three sep
arate and distinct municipalities, gave to |
zach the same power OF taxation on real and |
personal property within It's own limits that |
had resided In the city under the charter of /
1906.
By this act the existing city debt was al |
)ortioned among these municipalities on the
basis Of the amountvf taxes and resources
accruing to each; a sinking fund was created,
and 1t was provided, In case Of reunion, that
he "debt Of each municipality shall be paid
" the inhabitants thereof" A supplement
AIRY act OF March IL, 1885, declared, as q
precedent condition In case Of reunion, that
all the debts created by each Of the said mu-
licipalities shall first be fully paid and salts
led by each municipality respectively"
The municipalities maintained their dis
met corporate existence until 1852, when 1t
vas found that they had contracted debts
argely In excess Of their ability to pay, and
q no instance did. the amount Of
he Indebtedness bear the same relation
o the value Of taxable property within
he limits Of the municipality, and that
Il, were insolvent. By the act OF 1852.
nder which the Southern Bank proceeded,
be municipalities were again reunited In one
and the debts Of all consolidated.
ut on the condition that each was to pay. It's
wn debt and to be taxed proportionately
herewith on the basis Of the assessment of
351, and 1t was upon this understanding that
be consolidated bonds were issued. By an
ct passed In 1856 this apporhonment wasl .
hanged, and uniform and equal tax onlc
II real and personal property throughout thsI 3
ty established for the payment OF the con-
1lidatAd debt and interest