Case Name: CRUCIA v. BEHRMAN, Mayor, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-04-16
Citations: 147 La. 144
Docket Number: No. 23708
Parties: CRUCIA v. BEHRMAN, Mayor, et al.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., concurs in the decree.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 143–149

Head Matter:
(84 South. 525)
No. 23708.
CRUCIA v. BEHRMAN, Mayor, et al.
(April 16, 1920.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staf.)
1. injunction <&wkey;85(2), 218 — Enforcement of illegal ordinance affecting property rights may be restrained and violation of order punished.
Where the enforcement of an illegal law or ordinance, penal in its nature, will -injure a property right,' equity has jurisdiction to grant injunction to protect that right and to entertain contempt proceedings to enforce the injunction.
2. Injunction <&wkey;23I — Contempt proceedings for enforcing injunction continued by suspensive appeal may be reviewed.
Where an injunction restraining the enforcement of a city ordinance was continued in force by a suspensive appeal from an order dissolving it, a subsequent order discharging a defendant from a rule in contempt proceedings to enforce the injunction may be reviewed to protect the mandate for suspensive appeal.
3. Injunction &wkey;>231 — Contempt proceedings to enforce injunction protecting property rights • may be reviewed.
Though ordinarily in contempt proceedings for indignities toward or violations of injunction Supremo Court confines itself to a determination of the jurisdiction and powers of the lower courts, it can and will inquire into the correctness of the findings in such proceedings for the enforcement of decrees or orders, violation of which would destroy or injure substantial property rights.
4. Injunction <©=>231<— On appeal from contempt order petition for an injunction must be taken as true.
On appeal from an order discharging defendant from contempt proceedings for the enforcement of a temporary injunction, the allegations of the petition for injunction must be ta^en as true in determining the right's to the writ.
5. Injunction <&wkey;212 — Successor of inspector of police- bound by injunction against predecessor.
An injunction issued against an inspector of police to restrain the enforcement of an or dinance claimed to be illegal runs against the office and embraces all charged with the execution of its functions, whether the present incumbent or his successors, if they have knowledge thereof.
6. Injunction <@=221 — Information from plaintiff’s attorney puts successor of restrained police inspector on notice of injunction.
Where the successor of a police inspector who had been restrained from enforcing an ordinance against plaintiff was informed of the injunction by plaintiff’s attorney and could have ascertained the truth concerning it from the district court or the counsel for the city, he has such notice thereof as renders him subject to the injunction.
7. Injunction <&wkey;231 — Discharge in contempt proceedings not disturbed.
Where the record on appeal from an order discharging defendant from a rule of contempt for violation of an injunction against the enforcement of an ordinance did not show whether the discharge was based on defendant’s good faith or on a holding that the ordinance was legal, and plaintiff bad permitted the bearing on the merits to be continued indefinitely, the discharge will not be reversed.
Provosty, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred D. King, Judge.
Suit by Joseph Crucia against Martin Behrman, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, and another. From a judgment discharging Frank T. Mooney from a rule for contempt for violation of an injunction, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Robert H. Marr, of New Orleans, for appellant.
I. D. Moore, City Atty., and John J. Reilley, Asst. City Atty., both of New Orleans, for appellees.

Opinion:
DAWKINS, J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in injunction proceedings against the defendants, discharging one of them, the present inspector of police, Frank T. Mooney, from a rule for contempt provoked by plaintiff for the alleged violation of said injunction; it being contended by plaintiff in rule that the said inspector violated the writ which was issued to restrain interference with Crucia in holding musical performances in his restaurant, on the ground of the alleged illegality of Ordinance No. 4221 of the commission council of the city of New Orleans.
Answering the rule for contempt, the inspector set up that the plaintiff had been indicted by the Orleans parish grand jury for violating the Sunday law, and also Act 199 of 1912, making it a misdemeanor to operate a disorderly house; that after the return -of said indictments defendant in rule, who, so far as he knows, has never been enjoined from charging plaintiff with the violation of section 1 of said Ordinance No. 4221, C. C. S., did cause the arrest of plaintiff for the violation of said section; but that in doing so no disrespect was meant for the orders of the court, but respondent was merely exercising the functions of his office upon a subject-matter which fell clearly within the domain of a police regulation. He further averred that since the service of the rule he had been informed that early in 1917 Division B of the civil district court had issued a writ of injunction restraining the present mayor and the then acting inspector of police, John P. Boyle, from enforcing'said ordinance against plaintiff; that Boyle is no longer connected with the police department ; that respondent was not connected with said department when the writ was issued, and has never been made a party to the suit; further, that the civil district court was without jurisdiction, ratione materise, and without power or authority to_ issue said writ, and that said court had subsequently rescinded the same as having been improvidently granted; and that since the institution of this suit the Supreme Court had, in Tranchina v. City of New Orleans, 141 La. 788, 75 South. 683, held said ordinance valid. Opinion—Jurisdiction of the Lower Court to Issue the Injunction.
Whenever it is shown that the enforcement of an alleged illegal law or ordinance, though penal in its nature, will injure a property right, courts of equity have the power and jurisdiction to interfere for the protection of those rights. Le Blanc et al. v. City of New Orleans, 138 La. 243, 70 South. 212; Patout Bros. v. Mayor & Board of Trustees of New Iberia, 138 La. 697, 70 South. 616; New Orleans Baseball & A. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 118 La. 228, 42 South. 784, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1014, 118 Am. St. Rep. 366, 10 Ann. Cas. 757; McFarlain v. Town of Jennings, 106 La. 541, 31 South. 62. Therefore, having had jurisdiction to issue the injunction on the allegations of plaintiff's petition which charged injury to his business as the keeper of a restaurant, it follows that the court likewise had jurisdiction and power to entertain the contempt proceeding.