The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1881-02-19
Fhess.Dusas Case.

The Dugas Case.
No. 777O.-Wilow Vileor Dugas, appel
| lee, Us. the Town Of DonalIsonville.
This suit is brought npon bonds of the
Town Of Donaldsonville of the same
character, tenor and series as those in
yolyed in the case Of Justilien Oubre U.s..
the same defendant, just decided. That
decision dsposes Of all the points in-
volyed in this case except the defense Of
| want of consideration for the bonds sued
on.
In the Oubre case the plaintiff was
shown to be a third holder, for value
and by transfer before maturity, Of the
negotiable bonds sued on; and we held
that, as to such holder, the corporation
could only maintain dcfcnses affecting
the power of the corporate authorities to
execute the bonds, and could not plead
equities affecting the consideration
thereof.
In the present case it is not alleged or
proved that the plaintiff is such third
holder, and the record, though not very
clear Oh the point, leaves lis to infer that
she holds the bonds by Inheritance from,
or in representation Of the original holder,
RosemOnd Brand, to whom the bonds
were directly issued by the town. AS to
such original holder and as t" his sue
cessors or legal representatives, the town
can not be denied the right Of setting up
defenscs of want Of consideration.
The defense here is that the bonds
sued OH were without consideration, be-
cause issued in renewal or settlement of
debts which were illegal, null and void,
because issned by the Mayor without
authority from the Board Of Selectmen
of the town, and because, at the time of
issuance of the same, no provision was
| made for the payment Of the principal
and interest thereof, as required by law.
This case can not be treated as If it
We're suit upon the prc-existing bonds
themselves, and the authorities quoted
us maintaining defenscs of the, kind
| stated when opposed to such direct suits,
are not applicable i'll the present case.
The powers conferred on the Mayor
and Selnctluen of Donaldsonville by the
Act No. GO OF 1861 are unusually broad
and sweeping in their character. BY
that act they were authorized "to issue
bonds of said town, for such sums not
exceeding S25, 900, rs in their Judgment
may he required tor the interest Of said
town."
Of course this can not be construed as
authorizing these officials to l,erpetuate
Milful frauds upon the town or to give
away it's bonds without pretense or be-
lief of consideration inuring to it's ben
eft or interest. But it did certainly au-
thorize them to exercise their Judgment,
i'll good faith, in determining What was
for the interest of the town, and for such
purposes, to issue bonds.
This record informs us that, at the
time when the bonds sued on We're is
sued, there were outstanding matured
claims against the corporation to u large
amount, undoubtedly founded on original
consideration which had Injured to its
benefit, and believed by the holders and
the corporate authorities to be valid and
cxigiblc, the holders of which We're
threatening to sue on them, and the inn
mediate enforcement of which would
have imposed an enormous burden on
the tax payers. Under these crcum-
stances, we have no reason to doubt that
the corporate officers exercised their hon
est Judgment in determining that it
would be for the interest OF the town to
close up these outstanding claims by u
compromise or transaction with the
holders, under which the latter would
accept, in settlement thereof, new con-
soiidatcd bonds maturing at ten years
from date, and under which the corpo-
ration would be relieved from the danger
of immediate and intolerable taxation.
hi cot ,f<,I of} f,,
lures of 4 compromise or transaction be-
tween the town and the claim holders,
who, "for preventing a law suit, ad-
justed their differences by mutual CON
sent, in the manner which they agreed
on, and which every one of them pre-
ferred to the hope of gaining, balanced
by the danger of losing" Rev. G. c., 3O7I.
We think that such 3 compromise,
however unfortunate it may turn ont to
be, entered into i'll goo! faith i'll the ex-
ercise of an honest Judgment that it was
for the interest of tue town, was within
the legitimate scope of the powers con-
ferred by the act of 1861.
The compromise, thus validity entered
into, operates IL waiver OF objections to
the claims settled hereunder, which can
not be revived in an action to enforce
the compromise itself. Bach rs Slidell,
A., 375.
Nullity of the title, in an execution of
which the compromise was made, under
Art. '0SO of the Rev. c. c. can only he
invoked as cause of rescission, when,
in the compromise, the title was falsely
supposed to be valid through error Of
fact. When the mistake as to its valid
ity results only from error of law, the
article is not applicable. Davis Us. Rob-
inson, Ii A. 752. So held in France I'M
der Article 2o54 c. n, identical with
ours. Sirey, vol !, part 1st, p. 1919, 25th
March, 1907. sirey, vol. Ia, part lst, p.
IS, :5rd Dec 1913. Is Dur. p. 42S; 2 So
lon, Nullities, Nos. 402 403.
If there was any error on the part of
the corporate officials as to the validity
of the titles representing the claims set
| tied, it was error Of law only. The ar
chives or records Of the town informed
! them of al! tile facts and circumstances
attending the issuance of the pre- exist
| ing bonds, and it is not proved, or even
pretended, that they were ignorant there
of. We think, therefore, the surrender
and cancellation of the old titles and the
delay granted formed a sufficient consid-
Grafton for the compromise and for the
new bonds issued Hereunder. As here
tofore stated, all the other questions i'll
volved in this case find their solution in
the opinion rendered in the case of Os,hre
rs the same defendant