Case Name: STATE ex rel. DUFFY v. GOFF et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-10-20
Citations: 135 La. 335
Docket Number: No. 20,033
Parties: STATE ex rel. DUFFY v. GOFF et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 336–346

Head Matter:
(65 South. 481)
No. 20,033.
STATE ex rel. DUFFY v. GOFF et al.
(Oct. 20, 1913.
On the Merits, May 11, 1914.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 364*) — Time op Return — Statutes—Implied Repeal — Inconsistency.
Section 7 of Act 45 of 1870 (Extra Session), which declares “that, in all cases in which the right to office is involved, and an appeal is taken from the judgment of the lower court, it shall be returnable in ten days,” etc., forms part of a statute intended, generally, to regulate appeals to and in the Supreme Court, rather than as special legislation upon the subject of appeals, in cases belonging to any particular classes, and hence it in effect, and so far as they are in conflict, is repealed by the similar, general statute (Act No. 106 of Í908), which provides that all appeals to this court shall be made returnable within not less than 15 nor more than 60 days.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1969-1976; Dec. Dig. § 364.*]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 364*)-Return-Time — Statutes—Applicatio n .
Construing Act 106 of 1908 with Act 92 of 1900, there can be no doubt that the act first mentioned applies to appeals coming up from the parish of Orleans, since the only change made by the act of 1908 is the omission of the words “the parish of Orleans excepted,” which are to be found in the act of 1900.
[Ed. Note. — For Error, Cent. Dig. 364.*] other cases, see Appeal and §§ 1969-1976; Dec. Dig. §
3. Quo Warranto (§ 26*) — Title to Office —Trial.
Act 39 of 1873 provides a summary proceeding, by rule, for the benefit of a person, claiming a judicial office, Who has been appointed and confirmed by the Senate, and commissioned thereto, or elected and commissioned, and the regulations concerning the appeals in such cases have no application to a case where the "claimant, appointed to fill a vacancy, has not been confirmed by the Senate, and has proceeded under the provisions of the Code of Practice relating to the writ of quo warranto.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Quo Warranto, Cent. Dig. § 28; Dec. Dig. § 26.*]
On the Merits.
4. Courts (§42*) — Recorder’s Court —Establishment — Abolition—Statutes.
Article 141 of the state Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to provide for recorder’s courts in the city of New Orleans; and section 21 of Act 159 of 1912 (the charter of the city of New Orleans) establishes not less than three; and it gives to the commission council the right to locate them, and to define the territorial jurisdiction thereof. The action of the Legislature and of the council had the effect of abolishing the five recorders’ courts established in the former charter of the city and the acts amendatory thereof. Long v. Mayor, 81 N. Y. 425; In re I-Ienkle, 31 Kan. 712, 3 Pac. 531.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 163-170, 181-183; Dec. Dig. § 42.*]
5. Evidence (§ 33*) — Officers (§ 17*) — Appointment — Confirmation — Rejection — Evidence — Judicial Notice — Journals of General Assembly.
“The failure of the Governor to send to the Senate the name of any person appointed for office, as herein provided, shall be equivalent to a rejection.” Const, arts. 72, 157. Courts may refer to the journals of the General Assembly, although they are not offered in evidence. State ex rel. Ard v. Bankston, 23 La. Ann. 377, overruled. Barnard v. Gall, 43 La. Ann. 959, 962, 10 South. 5; 16 Cyc. 907.
rEd. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 47; Dec. Dig. § 33;* Officers, Cent. Dig. §§ 21, 113; Dec. Dig. § 17.*]
6. Officers (§ 89*) — Public Office — 'Usurpation — Prevention—Punishment.
“With regard to offices of a public nature (that is, which are conferred in the name of the state by the Governor, with or without the consent of the Senate, or by election), the usurpations of them are prevented and punished in the manner directed by special laws.” O. P. art. 868.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Officers, Cent. Dig. § 129; Dec. Dig. § 89.*]
7. Officers (§ 83*) — Title to Office — Trial —Exclusive Remedy.
The action provided by statute for trying title to office is ordinarily regarded as exclusive. State ex rel. Denis v. Mayor, 43 La. Ann. 98, 8 South. 893 ; 29 Cyc. 1417; High on Ex. Legal Rem. § 617.-
[Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Officers, Cent. Dig. §§ 115-123; Dec. Dig. § 83.*]
8. Officers (§ 83*) — Title to Office — Trial —Persons Entitled to Sue.
Act 156 of 1868, p. 199, is an act providing for trial of title to office, and it declares that one who brings a suit under it must be a “person interested,” if the suit is not brought by the Attorney General or district attorney.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Officers, Cent. Dig. §§ 115-123; Dec. Dig. § 83.*]
9. Appeal and Error (§ 781*) — Review — Moot Question.
The judiciary is silent until the presentation of some real right in conflict opens its lips. State ex rel. Romain v. Board, 49 La. Ann. 578, 21 South. 731.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 63-80, 3122; Dee. Dig. § 781.*]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Porter Parker, Judge.
Quo warranto by the State, on the relation of John M. Duffy, against Thomas P. Goff and others. Writs of injunction were refused, but a writ of quo warranto was issued and recalled after trial, and relator appeals.
Motion to dismiss appeal overruled, and judgment affirmed.
William J. Hennessey and Patrick F. Hennessey, both of New Orleans, for appellant. I. D. Moore, City Atty., and John F. C. Waldo, Asst. City Atty., both of New Orleans, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
MONROE, J.
Relator prosecutes this appeal from a judgment denying his application for a writ of injunction to restrain Thomas P. Goff and the commission council of the city of New Orleans from interfering with him in the discharge of the functions of the office of recorder in that city, and recalling the alternative writ of quo warranto whereby said Goff was directed to show the authority under which he exercises those functions. The judgment was- signed on May 9th; the appeal was granted, on motion, on May 14th, though the bond was not filed until May 15th; the appeal was made returnable on June 17th and lodged in this court on June 16, 1913,
Defendants move that the appeal be dismissed on the grounds that, under section 7 of Act 45 of 1870 (E. S.), it should have been made returnable in ten days; that, should the court hold this to be a contest for a judicial office, then, under Act 39 of 1873, the appeal should have been applied for, and the bond filed, within three judicial days from the rendition of the judgment, and the appeal made returnable within five days.
Relator contends that the matter is governed by Act No. 106 of 1908, and that the appeal was taken and returned in due time.
Act 45 of 1870 (Extra Session) is a statute entitled:
"An act relative to the Supreme Court, and to regulate the terms thereof, the proceedings therein, appeals thereto, and processes against sureties on appeal bonds."
It provides that the Supreme Court shall hold its sessions at New Orleans, Opelousas, and Monroe, at certain times, and that appeals from certain parishes shall be made re turnable at those sessions, respectively; that (section 7) in all cases in which the right to office is involved, the appeals shall be made returnable in ten days after judgment of the lower court; that (section 8) appeals in criminal cases may be made returnable within ten clays or, at the next term of the court, wherever held; and there are various other provisions, concerning the terms, sittings, and rules of this court, and the hearing of cases on appeal, from which,- considered in connection with the language relating to' appeals, as found in the title, we conclude that the statute is to be regarded as intended, generally, to regulate appeals to and in the Supreme Court, rather than as special legislation upon the subject of appeals in cases involving the right to office, criminal cases, or any other cases belonging to particular classes, and hence is in effect, and so far as they are in conflict, repealed by the similar, general statute, No. 106 of 1908, the title and text of which read:
"An act relative to appeals to the Supreme Court, and providing for return days therein.
"Section 1. That the judges of all the courts throughout the state shall fix the return days in all cases, civil or criminal, appealable to the Supreme Court: Provided, that, the judge shall fix the return day in the order granting the appeal which shall not be less than fifteen nor more than sixty days from the date of the order, except by consent of parties.
"Sec. 2. That all laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, and that this act shall take effect from and after its passage."
It may be here stated that, construing Act 106 of 1908 with Act 92 of 1900, we find no reason to doubt that the act first mentioned applies to appeals coming up from the parish of Orleans (although, as remarked in State v. People's Fire Ins. Co., 125 La. 986, 52 South. 120, the question had not, up to that time, been determined); the fact being that the only change made by the act of 1908 is the omission of the words "the parish of Orleans excepted," which are to be found in the act of 1900.
The Act No. 39 of 1873 (amending and re-enacting Act No. 11 of the same session), upon which, also, the appellees rely in support of their motion, provides for contestations with respect to judicial offices, where the person asserting claims to such offices "have been appointed and shall have been confirmed by the Senate and commissioned thereto, or shall have been elected, and, in pursuance of said election, shall have been commissioned."
The act declares that, if any person pretending to hold such office shall refuse to vacate and turn the same over "to the person so commissioned," such person, so commissioned, shall have the right to proceed, by rule, to have himself declared entitled thereto; that the rule shall be made returnable within 24 hours, and tried immediately, by preference and without a jury; that an appeal, in such cases, may be taken within three days, and shall be made returnable within five days; that the judgment of this court shall become final after the expiration of two legal days, whether judicial or otherwise.
It is evident, therefore, that the statute has no application here, since the relator was not elected, but is shown to have been commissioned by the Governor, in November, 1912, to fill an alleged vacancy, and, so far as we are advised, has never been confirmed by the Senate. Beyond which, this is not the proceeding by rule which the statute in question contemplates, but purports to be a proceeding under the provisions of the Code of Practice relating to the writ of quo warranto. We therefore conclude that the motion discloses no sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the appeal, and it is accordingly overruled.