Case Name: STATE ex rel. HOFFMAN v. JUDGE OF DIVISION B, CIVIL DIST. COURT. In re HOFFMAN
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1921-04-05
Citations: 149 La. 363
Docket Number: No. 24556
Parties: STATE ex rel. HOFFMAN v. JUDGE OF DIVISION B, CIVIL DIST. COURT. In re HOFFMAN.
Judges: DAWKINS, J., recused.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 363–367

Head Matter:
(89 South. 215)
No. 24556.
STATE ex rel. HOFFMAN v. JUDGE OF DIVISION B, CIVIL DIST. COURT. In re HOFFMAN.
(April 5, 1921.
On the Merits, May 2, 1921. Rehearing Denied June 5, 1921.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Rule to Show Cause.
Í. Mandamus <@=»I57 — Court rule, requiring notice of intention, intended for protection of opposing litigant.
The rule of this court that an application for an original writ, such as mandamus, etc., or for a rule nisi. in. such case, shall not “be entertained unless notice of the intention to make same shall have been given to the trial judge and to the opposing litigant, or his counsel, is intended more particularly for the protection of the interest of the opposing litigant, who has the right to look to the court for its enforcement.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On the Merits.
2. Constitutional law &wkey;>8 — Constitutional convention held not empowered by resolution to authorize stay of proceedings, where members interested as attorneys.
A constitutional convention held not au-. thorized to make a binding resolution that if a member or officer of the convention is employed as an attorney in a pending cause he shall he entitled to a stay of all proceedings until 10 days after the final adjournment of the convention.
Application by the State, on the relation of Daniel H. Hoffman, Jr., for an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should-not issue to compel the Judge of Division B, Civil District Court, to rescind an ex parte order of continuance of hearing of a rule against the Southern Bonded Warehouse Company, Incorporated. Proceedings dismissed, with leave to renew.
Alternative writ made peremptory.
James J. MeLoughlin, of New Orleans, for relator.
A. B. Booth, Jr., of New Orleans, for respondent.

Opinion:
On Rule to Show Cause.
MONROE, C. J.
This is an application for an order directing the judge, made respondent, to show cause -why a writ of mandamus should not issue, commanding him to rescind an ex parte order continuing until ten days after the adjournment of the constitutional convention, now in session, the hearing of a rule requiring the defendant (Southern Bonded Warehouse Company, Incorporated), in the suit No. 135689 of the docket of that court, to show cause, upon grounds set forth, why it should not be enjoined from making further use of the name adopted by it. The order to show cause was made as prayed for, and the judge has made his return, but there is nothing to show that the opposing party or its counsel has received any notice of this proceeding, the order was therefore made inadvertently, and must be rescinded, since rule 15 (136 La. xii, 67 South, xi) of this court reads:
"Section 1. No application for. an original writ, such as mandamus or for a rule nisi in such ease, shall be entertained by the court, or any of its members, unless previously filed in the clerk's office, and unless previous notice of the intention to make such application shall have been given to the judge, or judges, of the inferior court, if he, or they, be made respondents, and to the opposing party or his counsel; the service of such notice to be made to appear by the affidavit of the applicant or his counsel."
The rule was adopted more particularly for the protection of the interests of parties litigant, and they have a right to look to the court for its enforcement.
It is therefore ordered that the rule nisi herein issued be recalled, and this proceeding dismissed at the cost of the applicant, without prejudice to its right to renew its application upon complying with the quoted rule.