The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1880-01-31
A Financial Problem.


Can the Rentals Of Parish Lots be Gar
nisheod for Debt Judge Dunel
says They Can.
The interesting question as to whether
the laws Of the State provide any reme-
dy by which Judgment creditor can en-
force the payment Of his claim against a
parish, the authorities of which decline
or fail tomake even . #pretense Of pro-
yiding means for iquidating the paro-
chial indebtedness, is in a fair way to
find an early solution, as indicated by
the Judgment recently rendered by Judge
Duffel in the suit of Christian Kline %.
the parish of Ascension, No. 1889 of the
docket of the District Court. The fol-
lowing extracts fren the decree afford a
full explanation Of it's scope and the de-
tails of the matter at issue:
State of Louisiana, Fourth Judicial Dis
trict Court, parish of ASCENSION
Christian Kline vs. The Parish Of
Ascension; Boulanger ct al, gar
nishees.
Plaintiff having obtained Judgment
against the parish of Ascension t. r one
thousand six hundred aud twenty-fv
dollars and tbirtysix and one-third
cents, with interests and costs, caused to
be issued from this court writ of feri
facias thereon on the Goth of June, 1873,
under the provisions of the act of 1889,
and made many of the lessees of lots be-
longing to the parish garnishees, pro-
pounding interrogatories to them to as
certain the sums which they owed the
defendant for rents. Most all the gar
nishees answered categorically all the
questions propounded to them, acknowl-
edging the extent of their Indebtedness
for parish rents, both present and future,
under the terms of their leases. To tile
garnishment process the defendant filed
what is styled an Intervention and in
junction (Which was ordered by the court
to stand as the answer thereto) setting
up among other defenses that the rents
are not liable to seizure under execution.
The case was tried on that issue, and
after evidence adduced, submitted to the
court. There is no contest as to the cor
rectness of the judgment nor of the gar
nishment process under the execution is-
sued Hereunder, the defendant only con-
testing the right of an individual cred
itor to seize said rents, which, he con-
tends, are hors de commerce, and conse-
quently not liable to seizure under the
writ. On the merits, then, the only
question which the court is asked to de-
eide is, whether the effects seized are
liable to seizure These objects appear
to he: LIST, rents due by parties leasing
from the parish Of Ascension lots on the
square known as the estate House :"
2nd, of lots on the square bounded by
Cabahanossee, Attakapas and Opelousas
streets ana Louisiana Square; and, 3rd,
of lots OIL the square commonly called
the Court House Sqnare-all within the
town of Donaldso1ville. We do not con-
slider the rents seized in this case are es-
sential to the existence Of the corporation
of the parish, nor to the useful and proper
exercise of its functions. The parish
might be deprived of them without in
any degree impairing the proper exercise
of their functions by the Police Jury
thereof, and we think they can be very
properly held to form a part of that class
of rights which a creditor can seize I'M
der article 6J of the Code of Practice.
Indeed, it appears by the evidence in the
record that the Police Jury themselves
ul&A HOo SoHoIuCA tACSC IcHtS KS III dI1V
way essential either to the existence Of
the corporation of the parish ofAscension
or of the exercise of their fnnctinns-and
the cases relied upon BY defendants as
sustaining their prrtensiOns herein have
no application to the question in contro-
versy here. The distinction ATTEMPTED
to he drawn between the Police jury
representing the inhabitants of the par
ish and the inhabitants themselves is too
remote for practical purposes-1O A. 499::
II A. 63l; A. SIS; Is A. 362 We think,
therefore. that the sums due to the par
ish of Ascension for rents of lots belong
ing to it are liable to seizure-6 A. 571;
% A. 81; Ia A. 375. 1t is therefore, by
reason of the law and the evidence being
both in favor of plaintiff and against the
defendant, and by further reason of the
answers Of the garnishees herein ac-
knowledging their indebtedness to said
defendant, ordered, adjudged and de-
creed that the sums Of money which
they, the said garnishees, confessed that
they owed the defendant at the date of
the service Of the interrngatorics on them
respectively, and which have since be-
come due, be decreed to have been levied
or seized by the Sheriff from that date,
and that there be judgment in favor of
plaintiff, Christian Kline, requiring said
garnishees to pay him the sums of money
due by them respectively at the moment
the interrogatories herein were served
on them, as we'll as any sum absolutely
due by them to defendant-though not
then exigible-as the same shall become
due, until the full amount in principal,
interest and costs of plaintiff s Judgment
against the defendant, the Parish of AS
ce,lsion.
Here follows detail ed statement III
Guiding the names Of the garnishees, the
lot OF lots leased by each, the conditions
Of the various leases and the term for
which each lessee is indebted to the de-
fendant Further reference to this por-,
ton of tue Judgment is made in our edi-
torial remarks below1
Said sums to he collected by the Sheriff
of the parish Of Ascension according to
law, until the fall and complete sltisfac-
ton of the writ of feri facias in his hands
against defendant, the parish of Ascen-
sion.
1t is further ordered that all costs of
these proceedings he paid by said de-
fendant
Thus rendered, read and signed in open
court, parish of Ascension, this 18th day
of January, A. D. 1880.
HENRY L. DUFFEL,
Judge 4th Jud. Dist.
We have made a hasty calculation of
the amount due by each lessee mp to the
L.
Thomas O'Malley, $e5; Mrs. Casmir Mar
tin, $50; Raphael Mousse, $128; j. C.
Matthew, $138; Octave Mollere, $50; B.
Rybiski, $40; Mrs. Octave Terrio, $50;