The weekly Iberian. (New Iberia, La.) 1894-1946, 1911-10-21
SUPREME COURT
DECISION.
Returning Case to @the Dis
trict Court Of the Parish
for trial.

--O--
Iberia, st. Mary and Easte
Railway Company VS.. Morgan.
Louisiana and Texas Railway ant
Steamship Company. In re Nor
gan's Company applying for certi
Orari and prohibition. n.-Syllabrs
l. The judgments overrullng
in this case, exceptions of vague
ness and of no right and no cause
Of action, were interlOcutory and
worked no lrreparahle injury, and
are renewable only on appeal
from the final judgment to be ren
dered, and not by certiorari or pro
hibitioD.
2. Where a court is without ju
rishictiOn, it would impose a hard
ship and useless expense upon
the parties to compel them TO liti
gate to the end, and the law has
provided a remedy in the writ of
prohibition, which u an order
from the appellate court forbid
ding the court of the first instance
'to proceed further in the canse.
on the ground that cognizance of
such cause does not belong to such
court, OF that it is not competent,
to decide it," in other words, on
that ground that 1t is without ju
risdictIon Of the subject matter, or
of the person Of the defendant"
3 The fact that, after an OK
ception to Jurisdiction, ratiOne
person% has been overruled, de-
fendant files other exceptions,
which are also overruled, does not
preclude him from at that time
applying for a writ of prohibition,
though it would be otherwise, in
an appealable case, were he, then,
to put the case at issue and wait
until after trial on the merits and
judgment rendered, since, in such
case, the appeal would afford an
adequate remedy, and9the trial
judge would have no other func-
ti0n to discharge than to grant it.
4. The object. and the sole ob
ject, as declared in its title, of act
1872 Of 1908, amending and re-en-
acting act 93 of 1888, is to author
ize the bringing Of suits against
carriers for loss Of freight or dam
age thereto, either at the points
of delivery or at the dOmiciles of
the carriers, at the option Of the
plaintiffs, and to repeal all laws,
and special, in conflict
with that object; hence, the re
pealing clause of the act, purport
ing, specifically, to repeal section
IL of act 81 of 1877, which de-
clares that the defendant com
pany "shall be sued only at it's do
micile, except in cases of tres
pass" could, in no event, be con
atruei to operate the repeal Of
said section, save in so far as it;
prohibits tho bringing OF suits
such as are provided for by said
act Of 1908; for, otherwise, said
clause would be broader
than the title of the act and Oh.
noxi0us to article 80 OF the COns:i-
tuition.
5. Sec. IL of act 81. 1877 (de.
Legislative char:er), in
that defendant "shall
be sued only at its domlcile, ex.
,ept in actions of trespass," was
lOt intended TO prohibit the lnstl.
,ution of proceedings which are
lot ordinary snits, but are, essen.
,ially, proceedings in rem in par
she's other than that Of defen.
lant's d0micile, for the expr0pria
ion of property, there situated,
'ud Ct which defendant may be
,waer.-FOr the reasons thus as
'igned, it is ordered, adjudged
md decreed that the order hereto
ore made be net aside. that rela.
0r's demands be rejected, and
hat this proceeding be dismissed
It its cost.