Case Name: G. B. Kent vs. Parish of St. Helena
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1880
Citations: 1 Mann. Unrep. Cas. 228
Docket Number: No. 7412
Parties: G. B. Kent vs. Parish of St. Helena.
Judges: 
Reporter: Unreported cases heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, from January 8, 1877, to April, 1880
Volume: 1
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
No. 7412.
G. B. Kent vs. Parish of St. Helena.
A police jury has no authority to issue warrants to a person holding a claim against it for a larger sum than his claim because the warrants are depreciated, and thus create a claim upon the parish treasury more onerous than the debt. It is not only illegal but reprehensible as well.
2To recovery can be had in a suit upon warrants thus issued. Judgment cannot be rendered for the amount of the warrants, because it is in excess of the real sum due, nor for the actual sum due, because the suit is upon the warrants, and not upon the contract.
Appeal from the District Court for St. Helena. Duncan, J.
Wright & Lea for Plaintiff Appellant.

Opinion:
White, J.
In 1877 plaintiff, by public adjudication, contracted to build a bridge over the Amite River for $610, one-half to be paid by the Parish of East Feliciana, and the other half by the Parish of St. Helena. For the sum due by the latter, viz.: $305, the police jury, considering that parish warrants were worth only fifty per cent on the dollar, issued plaintiff warrants to the amount of $610, double the sum due by that parish, a proceeding authorized by no law and which we think utterly reprehensible. These warrants are the basis of the present suit, which is an effort to merge them to judgment. The lower court gave judgment for the defendant, and we think the foregoing statement of facts is a sufficient reason for its affirmance.
It is urged by plaintiff's counsel that, although the suit is upon the warrants, we ought at least to render judgment for the actual amount of the contract. The suit being on the warrants, we cannot select any one or two of them and give judgment for them. If the suit were on the contract we should want jurisdiction ratione material. To avoid prejudicing the plaintiff's rights on his contract we will reserve any right he may have thereunder.
Judgment accordingly.