Case Name: The State ex. rel. E. Daboval et al. vs. The Police Jury, Parish of St. Bernard
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1887-05
Citations: 39 La. Ann. 759
Docket Number: No. 9872
Parties: The State ex. rel. E. Daboval et al. vs. The Police Jury, Parish of St. Bernard.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 759–766

Head Matter:
No. 9872.
The State ex. rel. E. Daboval et al. vs. The Police Jury, Parish of St. Bernard.
Wlien the appealability of the case does not clearly appear, from the face of the pleadings, to determine the question, affidavits relating to the amount or value in dispute filed, in this Court will be considered.
In a suit attacking a franchise or privilege granted to a person or corporation, and it appears such franchise or privilege exceeds in value §2,000, this Court has jurisdiction.
A mandamus will lie to compel the performance of duties purely ministerial in their nature, and when they are so clear and specific that no element of discretion is left in their performance, but that as to acts or duties necessaiily calling for the exercise of judgment and discretion on tho part of the officer or body at whose hands their performance is required, mandamus will not lie.
APPEAL from the Twenty-fourth District Court, Parish of St. Bernard. Livandais, J.
Hampden Story and Sambola <& Diteros for the Relators and Appellees :
1. Courts of justice are hound to interfere with the discretionary power of a municipal . - corporation, when the exercise thereof is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, in-restraint of trade, oi in contravention of common right, or tends to create a monopoly. Const® 50,248, Act of 1884, Ho. 92; Cooley, 192, 200, 203; 33 Ann. 1182; 18 Ohio 300 ; 1 Dner, H. Y. 494; l Dillon 394 ; Act of 1880, Ho 101, § 9 ; Boone, § 292, 296-7, 310 ; 45111. 95; 78 111.405; Dillon 356; 7 Paige 261; 24 IVis. 542; 46 III. 490 ; 4QX. Y. 273; 3 Pick '46240 Mo. 550; 68 Mo. 544; 29 Wis. 307 ; 30 Wis. 322; 43 Iowa 524.
2. A mandamus lies to enforce, not only the performance of a duty, but also any legal right when the slowness of ordinary legal forms is likely to produce great delay and defeat the ends of justice, as well as in cases where there is no other specific remedy. Q. P. 829; Moses on Mandamus, 18 ; 103 111. 552 ; 7 Cal. 286; 1 R.. 496; 13 Ann. 291; 38 H. J. 262.
3. An affidavit, that tho facts are true to the best of affiant’s knowledge and belief axe sufficient, is sufficient in law. 1 It. 316; 13 Ann. 89.
4. Exceptions to forms are waived by going to trial without a previovs decision thereof. 23 Ann. 255; 18 Ann. 207; 26 Ann. 312; Vol. 2Dillon825, 82S, 906.
5. An affidavit to an original petition dispenses with swearing again to a supplemental petition, asking for a subsidiary writ or remedy on the very same sworn allegations. • Neminem cogit ad vana, 7 It. 444 ; 18 Ann: 243,
F. G. Zacharie on tlie same side.
77. Howard McCaleb and ¿Tames WilMnson for the Respondents and Appellants:
1. Mandamus will not lie to compel the members of a police jury to perform an act resting in their discretion. High’s Ex. Leg. Remedies, §§ 24, 34, 42, 325 ; Dillon’s Municipal Corporations, § 669; 2 La. 395; 21 Ann. 352; 20 Ann. 518; 22 Ann. 603; 23 Ann. 333; 29 Ann. 692.
2. The authority conferred upon police juries by Art. 248 of the Constitution is a delegation of the police power, with tho exercise of which the Courts cannot interfere without usurping jurisdiction.
3. The police jury cannot be compelled to grant a special permit to carry on a slaughterhouse. Tlie Constitution only requires them to pass general “ ordinances designating the places for slaughtering,” and expresslly prohibits the restriction of the business to the lands or liouses of any individual or corporation.”
4. In executing Art. 248 of the Constitution, the police juries act in the dual capacity of police juries and hoards of health. Sec. 3. Act 92 of 1882.
5. The act creating the* Crescent City Slaughterhouse (Ho. 118 of 1SG9), and designating the limits for the business, is not the ordinance authorized by the Constitution, hut a State law, which hag been expressly repealed hv the Constitution itself.
6. Motives and influences alleged to have actuated members of the police jury in their official conduct, cannot be inquired into collaterally. Dillon on Municipal Corporations, § 248. They may he removed from office (Const. Art. 201; Act 135 of 1382) ; or punished under the penal laws for bribery, corruption, oppression or misdemeanors. Const. Art. 173; Act Ho. 4 of 1873; Rev. Stats. 8G8 and. 869.
7. Villavaso vs. Barthet, recently decided, settles this case.
8. “A mandamus cannot be joined to au injunction.’' Mannings Unr. Oaa. 81.
7?. T. Beauregard on tlie same side.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss
The opinion, of the Court was delivered by Todd, J.
The relators, who had organized themselves into a cor poration known as the "St. Bernard Slaughterhouse Company," applied to the police jury for the privilege of erecting, maintaining and carrying on a slaughterhouse at a place designated in said parish. .
This application was refused, and the relators then resorted to a mandamus to compel them to grant the privilege asked, and from a judgment making the mandamus peremptory defendant appeals.
The motion to dismiss is on the grounds:
1. That the matter in controversy does not exceed $2000 in value.
2. That if it does exceed that sum, that the appeal bond is insufficient in amount.
1.
The pecuniary interest involved in the controversy does no explicitly appear from the pleadings, and in the record we find several affidavits, among them that of the president of the police jury of the parish, that the pecuniary interest of each party to the suit exceeds two thousand dollars.
These affidavits, in connection with the averments of the petition in regard to the capital stock of the corporation ($100,000), and the purposes and objects of the corporation leave no doubt on our minds that the value of the franchise sought by the relators far exceeds in value the judicial amount.
Tl.
The appeal bond was fixed in the order of the judge ; and in a suit of thiseharacter it was sufficient for a suspensive appeal.
Motion refused.