Case Name: New Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga Railroad Company v. City of New Orleans et als. Charles Morgan, Intervenor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1874-05
Citations: 26 La. Ann. 478
Docket Number: No. 3701
Parties: New Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga Railroad Company v. City of New Orleans et als. Charles Morgan, Intervenor.
Judges: ' Mr. Justice Wyly concurs in this decree for the reasons given by him in the former opinion of the court.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 478–491

Head Matter:
No. 3701.
New Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga Railroad Company v. City of New Orleans et als. Charles Morgan, Intervenor.
A municipal corporation possesses two classes of powers and two classes of rights — public and private. In all that relates to one class, it is merely the agent of the State and subject to its control. In the other, it is the agent of the inhabitants of the place — the corporators — maintains the character and relations of individuals, and is not subject to the absolute control of the Legislature — its creator. Among this latter class is the right to acquire, hold ahd dispose of property — to sue and be sued, etc. — just as certain rights are conferred on private corporations and persons, not sui juris, such as minors and married women, but are not afterwards, as long as they exist, under the control of the Legislature.
A municipal corporation may own property, to and over which the Legislature has, while said corporation exists, no right or control in opposition to or independently of the will or consent of the corporation.
It is a manifest fact to all that the incorporation of such a city as Hew Orleans is a necessity. The multiplying and complicated interests of the compact and increasing community are such that the Legislature can not administer them; and some of them are of such a. nature as not to be within mere legislative action, but are to be conducted under general rales, thus necessitating the creation of an intellectual body, with something more than, governmental functions, but which do not constitute an wvperivm m imperio.
If then a municipal corporation can acquire the fee simple of property, the squares intended for the depots of the plaintiffs were so acquired, and they can not be taken by the-Legislature, while the city corporation exists.
The Legislature expressly recognized and ratified the compromise of September, 1820, between the city and certain riparian proprietors in relation to the property in question, imposing conditions which were complied with. The theory that the city acquired the property simply as the agent of the State can not be accepted, because the city can own private property, and because the former owners intended to, and did, by the act of twentieth June, 1851, transfer the title thereof to the city, subject only to the uses of commerce and of the public, while so needed.
The injunction in this instance was improperly issued against the defendant — the city of Hew Orleans — hut as the city has made no claim against the plaintiffs, a demand in re-convention can not be admitted, and a decree inhibiting the plaintiffs from occupying the property id controversy could not be granted.
Under the pleadings, all that can be done is to render judgment in favor of the city dissolving the injunction and dismissing plaintiffs’ suit, leaving the parties to their rights, under the laws relative to the expropriation of property.
Appeal from the Eighth District Court, parish of Orleans. Dibble, J.
J. A. Oanwpbell and J. B. JGustis, for plaintiffs and appellees. George 8. Dacey, City Attorney, and W. W. Kmg, for defendant and appellant. Miles Taylor and Leovy & Monroe, for intervenor.

Opinion:
Wyly, J.
The question presented in this case is the same as that just decided, and for the reasons therein given.
It is ordered that the judgment herein be annulled, and the injunction be dissolved j and it is now ordered that there be judgment for-the city of New Orleans, and that the prayer of the latter in reconvention be granted, and it is ordered that the plaintiffs be restrained and inhibited from occupying the property in controversy. It is further ordered that plaintiffs pay costs of both courts.