Case Name: The State of Louisiana ex rel. The Southern Bank vs. Edward Pilsbury, Mayor, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-04
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 408
Docket Number: No. 8751
Parties: The State of Louisiana ex rel. The Southern Bank vs. Edward Pilsbury, Mayor, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 408–413

Head Matter:
No. 8751.
The State of Louisiana ex rel. The Southern Bank vs. Edward Pilsbury, Mayor, et al.
Under our jurisprudence a final judgment is the property of the party in whose favor it waF rendered, and such party or his assignee or subrogee alone has the part to issue and to control execution thereon.
The District Court, to whom a cause is remanded from this Court, cannot execute the judgment rendered in the case in a manner differing from the order of this Court. In such a case the functions of the District Court are merely ministerial. It cannot render any new judgment which would authorize or render an appeal necessary. The execution which it orders is subject to the revision of this Court. And any error which it may commit in directing such execution, will entitle the party aggrieved to an appeal.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Hightor, J.
JS. Howard McCaleb for Relator and Appellee :
1. A party, against whom a judgment is rendered by an appellate court, who thinks himself injured by the manner in which the execution was ordered, must seek relief by a superardeaSy to he granted by the court from which the mandate was issued. No appeal lies from the order of execution. C. P. Arts. 6*29, 877, 878; 11 L. 366; 6E. 92; 20 An. 581; 11 An-196 ; 97 U. S. 361.
2. A party demanding the execution of a judgment rendered by the court of appeal is not required to give previous notice to the opposite party. C. 1?. Art. 620.
3. The transferred of a judgment has the right to issue execution thereon in the name of hi» transferror (13 An. 325) or in his own name. 8 An. 267; 7 An. 94.
4. On the natural or civil death (cioilter mortuus) of plaintiff, his representatives, assigns, * ayant cause, may take out execution. 6 N. S. 514; 5 N. S. 520; 13 An. 374.
5. Where plaintiff has assigned his interest, the control of the suit will be given to (his assignee) the party having the beneficial interest therein. 19 How. 384.
6. A party has a general right to change his attorney (10 Wall. 496) and to employ other counsel to protect his interest. 28 An. 293.
7. The Articles of the Code relative to payment with subrogation have no application to the absolute transfer of a debt. 13 An. 273.
8. Notice of assignment is only necessary to perfect tbe transfer in so far as third persons are concerned. Rev. C. C. Arts. 2643, 2644. It is for the assignee’s and creditor’s benefit; a matter in which the debtor has no interest.
9. Payment to the holder of negotiable instruments will discharge the debtor, although such holder be not the real owner nor empowered by him. Rev. G- C. Art. 2145.
10. Judgment on one of a series of bonds is res judicata as to all holders of other bonds of the same series. 7 "Wall. 619 ; 29 An. 690.
11. “If the judgment of the State Court is reversed, it is bound to dispose of the case as directed, and has no power either to evade or reverse the judgment of the United States Supreme Court.” 1 Wheaton, 304; 8 Pet. 312; 17 Wall. 253.
O. F. Bucle, City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant:
1. One not a party to the record has no control over the execution of a judgment. 5 N. S. 707.
2. The District Court can act only ministerially in the execution of a decree returned to it from this Court. Its proceedings, in this respect, are subject to revision by this Court. 6N. S. 276; 7R.92.
3. Limitations, conditions or directions of this Court, as to the mode in which a judgment shall be executed, are binding on the inferior tribunal. Especially is this true in a suit, the object of which is a mandamus to compel the performance of some specific act, or duty, by public officers.
4. The ownership of bonds of the character on which the j udgment is based, by a person not a party to the suit, should be established contradictorily with the defendant before any action or proceedings can be had in the suit, at his instance, if such action were otherwise admissible.

Opinion:
Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Poché, J.
The City of New Orleans prosecutes this appeal from an ex parte order or decree directing the execution of the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, and of the decree of this Court predicated thereon, rendered in this case.
The order complained of was rendered on the motion of R. D. Shepherd, as the. holder and owner of four of the six hundred and thirty-one bonds declared upon by the Southern Bank.
Appellee contends that no appeal lies from the order of the lower court ordering the execution of a decree rendered by this Court. But the very complaint of the City is, that the mandate ordered to be executed by'the District Court is not the decree of this Court and, hence, her appeal presents a question properly to be reviewed by this Court. As stated in the case of Cox's Executors vs. Thomas, 11 La. 366; " The functions of the District Court in relation to a mandate which has issued from this Court to have a judgment executed, are merely ministerial. It cannot render any new judgment which would authorize or render an appeal necessary." Lovelace vs. Taylor, 6 R. 92.
The gist of the City's complaint is, that the District Judge, in granting an execution to Shepherd, the appellee, who is not an original party to the suit, nor an assignee of the original plaintiff, has virtually rendered a new judgment, and she has the undoubted right to have a revision of such alleged judgment, as was done in the case from the Eleventh Louisiana.
The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.