The Banner-Democrat. [volume] (Lake Providence, East Carroll Parish, La.) 1892-current, 1893-03-25
LAW vs.. EQUITY.


/ No. ll.l66-Timothy Byrne VS..
Parish of East Carroll. Appeal
from the Eighth judicial district
court. Tile condition of the CON
tract was that the contractor wonld
be paid from special fund if voted
on favorabIy to the voters at a
special election The contractor
cannot recover Judgment against
the defendant parish and ignore the
means agreed upon to secure his
payment. The special election was
ordered and held in contrayen-
ton of prohibitory law, and was
null and void.
| A municipal corporation cannot
be estopped from pleading and
showing that certain acts were not
within the scope of its authority.
The doctrine of estoppage in its APP
plication to municipal corporations
is subject to restrictions ard quail
fcations. Sequestratlon being one
of original powe, to hold a special
election, and not one relating to the
compilation of the votes, aud de-
claring the results is not one ex-
clusively within the discretion of
the police jury. 1t is subject to
| judicial inquiry and decision.
Judgment affirmed.
In selecting the above caption we
mean no reflection whatever upon
the technical consistency of the
courts that passed upon the case of
T. By VS.. the parish of East
Carroll, but it must be evident to
the most casual observer that the
equities in the case were completely
lost sight of, or if noticed, were not
permitted to figure in any way as
factors in the case.
| The upper court says "the con-
tractor cannot recover Judgment
against the defendent parish and
ignore the means agreed upon to Sc
cure his payment" which is rather
hard lines, when these means are
found to be null and void because
prohibited by law.
1t is not likely that contractor
Byrne scrutlnized in any way the
legal aspect of the election ordered
by the police jury, but went right
ahead with his work and completed
his contract. The State paid
promptly its half of the cost, but
nearly all the half that should have
been paid by the parish is still due,
and the contractor is refused q judg-
ment against the parish for the rea-
sons above set forth.
The history of the case is well
known to the property holders of
the parish. 1t was an emergency
in which overflow was imminent and
a protection levee was needed to
prevent it. The State and the parish
joined in the contract. The state
paid, the parish did not. We do not
believe. that the tax payers of
East Carroll have any desire to de-
fraud Mr.. Byrne out of this honest
earnings, which are justly due. On
the contrary, We are satisfied they
are willing to make any reasonable
settlement to set the matter at rest.
The amount divided mp among
the taxpayers would be but small
pittance to each while to him 1t
would be great relief.
If Mr.. Byrne had ample means,
the laws technicalities, depriving
him OF what is his just dues, might
be po-hood and winked at, but he and
his family are well advanced IN life
ana as '.close rum as people gener-
ally get to be.
We are writing with the earnest
hope that the people of our parish
will see the necessity of compensat-
ing MIR. Byrne for the work he done
in saving the country from overflow,
though the courts have denied him
relief. Even handed justice de-
mands that he should be paid. He
needs the money badly and he is
justly entitled to it, despite the
laws denial.