The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-11-12
JUDGMENT CREDITORS.
An Interesting Decision by the
Judge of the Fourth Dis
trict Court.
The Gaslight Company vs. The City
Questions Affecting the Price of
the Railroad Franchises and
the Municipal Budget.

The City Ordered to Register Certain
Judgments
Yesterday. In the Fourth District Court. Judge
Houston rendered the following declsion:
State OK rel. New Orleans Gaslight Company
vs. The Council Of tho Qlty OF New Orleans et
als--The relator IL q Judgment creditor Of the
city Of New Orleans In the sum OF sl13.J6s Us for
balance due to rentor for gas furnished to tho
city In the years 1875, 1876. 1871 and 1878. The
judgment was rendered on the thirteenth of
June. 1873 and was registered In the Office OF
| the Administrator Of Public Accounts on the
| twenty third Of October. 1873. under the pro-
visions of act No. 3 OF tho extra session Of the
year 1870, Though demanded. payment has
| not been made Of that Judgment or any pnrt
thereof. aud the budget Of the succeeding year,
4 that Of 1879 contains no provision In favyr Of
that judgment or anterior Judgments, There
is IN appropriation OF $1,000 la tho budget of
1879 to pny judgments generally, though none
are specified. Act No. 8 of tho extra session of
| 1870 prohibits the Issuance Of any writ of tleri
faeias or execution against tho city Of New Or
leans. md provides for the registry of all iudR
their payment IN order Of date of registry by
| appropriation tor that purpose. to be made
IN The annual budget Of the city.
Relator recltes the advertisement OF the sale
| of the franchises Of the New Orleans CITY Rail
road Company on the first Of September. 1879:
the bid OF the sum of $3.50 600 cash. and alleges
! that as the present franchises OF hs company
do not expire until the months Of February and
| should he included In the budget OF receipts
and revenues for the year 1880, and form fund
to be appropriated TO the payment Of the OK
penses aud liabilities OF the city, including
| registered Judgments.
kelator alleges that, In violation Of the proyl-
siOns Of law and OF the rights OF rsiator rs the
owner ofa registered judgment, the Council Of
the city have resolved 10 collect, before the bud
get OF 1880 ts made up. the price Of these fran
ed and floating debt of the city, whether duo or
not. that by act No II of the act OF 1876 prov.-
sion was made for the PAYMENT OF premium
bonds by the levy OF u special tax Of one half of
one per cent annually on oil the assessed prop
erty within the corporate limits Of the city;
| that no other provision for the payment Of said
bonds has beon nude or s cuntem plated than
appears in said net.
Itslator alleges that the current expenses and
judgments Ia the order OF their registration are
entitled to be- paid by preferenc over all other
| liabilities If the city out Of any annual reve-
by law TO other purposes, and that Ii is the duty
OF tho Council to exhaust the power Of taxation
to provide for the payment OF registered iudg-
The prayer Is that n writ of mandamus issue
to the Council OF tile city o. New Orleans. and
to the said Mayor and Administrators sep
arately. commanding them to include In the
| next budget or estimate Of receipts the price or
proceeds Of tho aforesaid railroad franchises.
and liabilities the Judgment aforesaid In favor
OF REALTORS and I'LL previously registered iudg-
ments; and In order to insure sufficient fiji I'd
to provide for the payment OF said judgments.
that they and their successors In office shall II
necessary. exhaust their power Of taxation
anh continue to az SO. Till REALTORS Judgment 10
BY q supplemental petition II is alleged that
since the filing OF the, original petition hereto
q consideration of the grant of railroad fran |
chises and right OF way conferred on the City
a das If b Il Y aso alleged net
leans under which the gas was furnished for |
which the Judgment Was rendered. that the rate |
Of municipal taxation was TX per cont on as-
sessad values, and that the limitation Of thu tax
Ing power OF the corporation TO IL per centum |
by act NO. 81 OF the session Of 1876 Is inoperatv
aud void so far as 1t affects the rights III rala- |
tors. and impar5 the obligation Of the contracts |
a, l between the city and REALTORS. and VIC
aI9e tne ten seon q art q the cGnst
same as in the original petition,
me a., defendants en- answer substantially:
/. That the taxes which were levied to pay for
the gas furnished In 1876 ZIG. II. rs are now In
process Of collection and are ample TO pay the
judgement l Tor balances due. obtained by reator
VINO by this proceeding Ia attempting to have
double provision made for the payment of It's
debts.
chlses, $3.50 900 cash. have been applied to the
reduction Of the bonded uebt Of the city OF New
Orleans rs required by section % OF act No 30,
August 2G, 1870 passed to carry out the proyf-
sions OF said net, which ordinance was passed
long prior to the institution of this suit.
the holder Of q registered Judgment against
the city Of New Orleans can BY mandamus com
ment. after all other previously registered
judgments. on the budget for tho year or years
succeeding that In which the Judgment was
This question has been considered by the su-
preme Court e. and answered Ia the aflirnaiye in
ton Company cyp; the Mayor and Adminlstra-
tors Of New Orleans. 80 Annual. 1919 and TOT.
The tact that the Items which constitute the
ia of fffpYr.n
priations nude In past years will not change
the rule.
Unpaid appropriations on some budget OF
form the basis Of all judgments
rendered against the city, except those for
damages.
The probability that back taxes Will be COL
lected In sufficient amount to pay the past ap-
made In his favor must be deter
mined by the city creditor for himself before
bringing suit and placing himself In the cate
CORY Of judgment creditor.
There is no prohibition Of law against such q
bringing suit.
II the Council were justified In placing the
$3.50 900 to the credit of the premium bond fund
and in purchasing premium bonds with that
amount and retiring them, then no mandamus
could lie to compel them to place the said
amount OF sG30Oo0 on the budget of receipts for
the year 1880.
Section 10. act No. 81 Of 1876. commonly known
as the premium bond act, provides that no
city property Of any kind shall hereafter be sold
ceeds 5e appliedto the reduction Of the bonded
or floating debt"
The term property In our law Is one of great
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. It has been held to In
elude the franchises OF Il corporation New
Orleans Gaslight Company VS.. The Board Of
Assessors, 81 Annual
1t includes all incorporeal rights. The statute
says city property Of any kind" Indicating
that 1t was the intention OF the law-maker to
use the term property In its largest sense.
The right OF reyersfon which the city had to
purchase all the property of each line ut an ap-
praised value was sold at the same time with
ne right OF way. and it's price Is included In
the |
pany. There can be no doubt that that right Of
revers1on was property, and it seems Sufficiently
stderad as property within the meaning OF
he act when we consider the forcible terms
n which the section is couched and the desire
u the Legislature as apparent by the context Of
he whole act to guarantee the redemptio OF
these bonds and the payment Of the floating in
debtedness. 1t was discretionary with the