Case Name: State of Louisiana v. Charles Clinton, Auditor, and A. Dubuclet Treasurer. New Orleans, Mobile and Texas Railroad Company, Intervenor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1874-04
Citations: 26 La. Ann. 346
Docket Number: No. 4618
Parties: State of Louisiana v. Charles Clinton, Auditor, and A. Dubuclet Treasurer. New Orleans, Mobile and Texas Railroad Company, Intervenor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 346–348

Head Matter:
No. 4618.
State of Louisiana v. Charles Clinton, Auditor, and A. Dubuclet Treasurer. New Orleans, Mobile and Texas Railroad Company, Intervenor.
The State, on the petition of the Attorney General, having injoined. the Auditor and the Treasurer from issuing warrants for the payment of and from paying certain obligations of the State, and having prayed to have the appropriations therefor and the said liabilities declared null, the Uew Orleans, Mobile and Texas Railroad Company intervened and moved to dissolve the injunction so faras it applied to the bonds of the State issued to said company.
The grounds of the injunction were that the appropriation for the payment of the coupons of said bonds is a disguised donation of the funds of the State to a private corporation; that the Governor had no authority to subscribe for the stock of said company, and that the act 95 of 1871, by virtue of which the said bonds were issued, attempted to create a debt exceeding $100,000, without providing adequate means for its payment as required by-article 111 of the State constitution, and also in excess of the constitutional limitation to the State indebtedness.
-Zt is contended, on the other side, that the State can. not sue to annul the bonds in question, without first tendering back the stock which it is admitted has been received by the State in exchange for the bonds.
The doctrine of tender could not be properly applied to this case. The State does not seek to annul the contract and recover back the bonds given as the price. The law officer of the State simply asks that her’fiscal agents be prohibited from paying certain bonds and coupons, on the ground that the law which authorized their issuance is unconstitutional.
The suit was not against the holders of the bonds, or the parties to the contract, and there was no ono to whom the tender of the certificate of stock could be made. The injunction or prohibition issued on the petition of the Attorney General, made it legally impossible, while it existed, for the fiscal agents to pay, and in this way only were the rights of the intervening company affected, and the necessity imposed upon the company to take ¡some legal proceedings to obtain payment. , They chose to intervene in these proceedings in order to assert their rights and remove the obstructions to their access to the State treasury. They are therefore not in a position to plead that a tender of the stock should have been made to them before the issuance of the injunction herein, although it practically closed the treasury to them. But any judgment in the suit to which they were not made parties, would not have been res judicata, as to them.
This case must be remanded for further evidence and such proceedings as may be appropriate.
Appeal from the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans. Hawkins, J.
A. P. Meld, Attorney General, J. Q. A. Fellows, J. J3. Hotton, Whitaker & Fenégre, for the State. Howe, Prentiss and Alexander Walker, for intervenor.

Opinion:
Howell, J.
The State, on the petition of the Attorney General, (having injoined the Auditor and Treasurer from issuing warrants for ¡the payment of interest on, and from paying quite a list of the obligations of the State, and prayed to have the appropriations therefor and the said indebtedness declared null, the New Orleans, Mobile and 'Texas Railroad Company intervened in the suit and moved to dissolve the injunction, so far as it applied to the bonds of the State issued to ¡said company.
The grounds of the injunction, in this respect, are that the appropriation for the payment of the coupons of said bonds is a disguised ¡donation of the funds of the State to a private corporation; that the «Grovernor had no authority to subscribe for the stock of said company, •and the act 95 of 1871, by virtue of which the said bonds were issued, •attempts to create a debt exceeding $100,000 without providing adequate means for its payment, as required by article 111 .of the State Constitution, and also in excess of the constitutional limitation to the ;State indebtedness.
The injunction was dissolved as to the intervenor, and the other parties appealed.
It is contended, on behalf of appellee, and we think correctly, that 4;he State can not sue to annul the bonds in question without first tendering back the stock, which it is admitted has been received by the State in exchange for the bonds. There is not even an allegation of such tender, which, it is suggested, the Legislature alone is competent to make or authorize.
Judgment affirmed.
Wyly, J.
I was not present at the consultation at which this case was decided, and, therefore, I took no part in this decision.