The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1881-03-12
NUMBER q.

tants OF any Of them to invoke the aiil
OF the courts and III proper proceedings
restrain the matappr0priation or misap-
preparation OF thu property or it's reve-
nHes, when violatiye of the intent Of the
donor. The decision in the case Of the
Police Jury Of the parish of Planlemines
rs. - ct ais, 80 An. Sd, in our opinion,
covers the case. Here the court sain.
Property dedicated to public use can
not be the object of private ownership.
Ii IS out of commerce and not liable to
seizure" Il. c. c. 449, 454. 455 and 45s:
q A. "a; 7 A. sos ID A. $50; 2 A. 5g; 2i
A. 244; 20 A. &, $50; Dillon on Munici-
pal Corporations, Sec. 531: "a munici-
pal corporation has not implied or incl
dental authority to alienale or dispose
for its own benefit property dedicated
to, or held by it in trust for the public
use, nor can it extingnish the public
uses IN such property, nor is such prop
e'fy subject to the payment Of tie debts Of the
municipality" Dillon OH Municipal Cor
peiations, Sec. 512. We hold, then, that
property donated or dedicated to par
is.i for public uses is not liable to seizure
for debts due by the parochial corpora
ton, and the revenues derived from such
property have the same character as tho
property itself, are destined for public
uses and are likewise not liable to seiz-
IRE. But it is said the property itself and
It's revenues are not applied to the spe-
clflc purposesfor which the donation or
dedication was made. If such be the
case, they are none the less property
with its accessory revenues, intended for
public uses, and the right to have the
donation or dedication aunuIle,1 aud the
property revert to the donor for the rea-
son that the conditions have not been
fulfilled ,remains with the donor, and the
mlsappropriation by the donee may be
rectified by the parties in interest. A
parish, OF rather parochial authorities,
hre but the representatives within cer-
tain territory and with limited, stat,I-
tory power, of the people within it's terri
toliai limits, and while their acts within
the scope OF their clearly defined granted
powers are binding upon their constitn-
ents, we can not admit that their NAL
feasance or mist -asance can divcst such
constituents of their rights of property.
The closing portion of the opinion of tho
court i'll the case just cited seems to ns
to be decisive Of the principle herein In
volved: i" We see no significance in the
fact that the whole of the donated trust
is not in actual public use. 1t suffices
that the public has a right to nse. Nor
does the fact that the part seized was
cultivated in rice in 1875, under lease
from the parish, operate to deprive the
public of its rights of use. We have
just seen that the parish can not directly
OF indirectly divest the property of its
public character. How much Of said
property is or is not needed for the use
OF the public, is not, in it's nature, y
judicial question. It snfficcs for us to
know that the public has right to tho
use OF the rhoie and for anght we can
know, may have some day necessity for
it's use." Dillon OH Municipal Corpora
tions. Secs. 531, 445, Ga, 446; 9 Otto, 149;
Z A. 14s.
1t is therefore ordered, adindped and
deereed that the Judgment Of the lower
court be annulled, avoided and reversed,
and proceeding to render such Judgment
as should have been rendered il this
case, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed
that the opposision of defendant to tho
proceedings in garnishment be sustained
that said punishment proceedings be
dismissed and that the appellee do pay
costs of both courts.
Mr.. Justice Poch6 recnses l,imself in
this case, having been of counsel in the
original case.