Case Name: The State of Louisiana ex rel. Henry Samory vs. The City of New Orleans
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1882-03
Citations: 34 La. 469
Docket Number: No. 8233
Parties: The State of Louisiana ex rel. Henry Samory vs. The City of New Orleans.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 469–476

Head Matter:
No. 8233.
The State of Louisiana ex rel. Henry Samory vs. The City of New Orleans.
This is a suit by the holder of certain, bonds of the City of New Orleans, issued under Act No. 49 of 1869, to compel by Mandamus the said City to pay the interest due ou those bonds in 1881, out of tbo revenues of that year. Held, that the revenues of that year being already absorbed by the expenditures, as shown by the budget, the Relator is not entitled to the Mandamus.
The writ of Mandamus should not he granted in cases where, if issued, it would prove unavailing.
The Mandamus, if granted, could not be executed by the levy of an additional tax, because the Relator has not aslfed for the levy of such additional tax.
The City of New Orleans, in the absence of a judicial decree, could not legally, of its own accord, levy a tax beyond the constitutional limitations, to'pay its debt.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
1). G. & L. L. Labatt, for the Relator and Appellee:
1. Whenever a party interested in the performance of a ministerial duty imposed by law upon apublio officer of a corporation, shows a deliberate refusal or neglect to perform, at the specified time required by law, by which he will be injuied or apprehends injury or damage, and such party has no other adequate remedy at law, he will bo entitled to the writ of mandamus to compel performance.
*2. Where the City of New Orleans has been duly authorized by legislative acts to negotiate a loan and issue bonds payable in the future, and provision is made therein for incorporating in the annual budget the interest falling due semi-annually as a liability to bo provided for by taxation and for a sinking fund to retire or pay, the bonds, and the Council refuse to exercise the powers conferred, or appropriate the revenues to other objects, a mandamus will lie at the instance of any party injured to compel obedience, and no subsequent limitation, legislative or organic, can justify neglect or refusal to comply. See 8 Otto, TT. S. vs. New Orleans.
3. Where bonds are issued under legislative authority by a municipal corporation, and at the time there exist no legislative limitation of taxation to pay said bonds at maturity, or to provide for the interest accruing, no subsequent legislation, whether statutory or organic, can impose a limitation depriving the holders of the right to be paid as fixed by the con tract, and it is eminently just, that in such a case, the courts should enforce obedience by mandamus.
4. “Any law which in its operation amounts to a denial or obstruction of the rights accruing by a contract, though professing to act on the remedy, is directly obnoxious to the prohibition of the Constitution." 22 Graft. 265; 6 Cr. 87; 8 Wb. 1; 2 How. 605; 32 Wh. 233 t 4 “Wall. 553; 2 Wall. 10; 13 Wall., White vs. Hart, 96 IT. S. 595; Ranger case, 8 Otto : Wolff, 12 Otto, and Premium Bond case, La. An. R.
5. Tho right to a mandamus is based on three things, which appear in this Record, conclusively; 1. A clear legal right in relator. 2. A corresponding-ministerial duty in the defendants. 3. A want of any other specific or adequate remedy. C. P. Article 834; Strong, C. J., in Commonwealth vs. Pittsburg; 34th Penu. Stat. 509 ; 15 A. 334, 603; 9 A. 496 ; 2 L, 395 ; 5 L. 332 ; 6 L. 598 ; 7 L. 511; 9 L, 332; 21 A. 552.
6. When the time has passed to do a particular act required by a maudamus, and respondents by appeal suspend its performance, this Court will so modify the writ on affirmance as to malee it effective and prevent a denial of justice. Commr. vs. Sellew, 9th Otto,
O. F. Buck, City Attorney, for Respondent and Appellant:
1. In virtue of the Act Ho. 5, Acts of 1870, Extra Session, no creditor of the City of Hew Orleans, whether he he holder of a liquidated or unliquidated claim, can compel the payment of money by means of the writ of mandamus, by appropriation out of general receipts and revenues.
2. On general principles, mandamus will not lie to compel the payment of money when then» is an adequate remedy at law, by ordinary action, to reduce the claim to judgment.
3. Mandamus to compel the performance of a “duty" enjoined on the municipal government, will not issue when the duty, so-called, is part of the discretionary exercise of legislative* authority, and not a mere absolute ministerial one.
4. The writ of mandamus to levy a tax, or provide the funds wherewith to pay a bonded debt, is not allowed against a municipal corporation, without judgment previously obtai/ned, except in the single instance where a specific tax is directed by the Legislature to pay a particular debt authorized by it. The tax so directed to be levied is part of tho contract, and therefore permitted to be enforced without judgment on the debt.
Sec. 5, Act 49, Acts .of 1869, provides that it shall be the duty of the Common Council of the City of Hew Orleans, annually, (at the formation of the annual budget) to appropriate a sum sufficient to pay the interest on certain bonds authorized by said Act. The limitation on the power of taxation was fixed at 14 per cent. This “ duty " was continued in Act Ho. 7, Acts of 1870, (City Charter) and the rate of tax raised to 12 per cent. By subsequent legislation, Act 31, Acts of 1876, the Premium Bond Act and Constitution of 1879, the foregoing provisions were repealed; a tax of fifreen mills authorized — five mills for the benefit of the only class of bonds retaining recognition iu the statutes, and ten mills-for the support of the government. It is submitted on this statement of statutory provisions, that a mandamus cannot be made.peremptory, directing the City Council to appropriate a certain amount of money out of the revenues which, in its discretion, acting in its legislative capacity it has the right,- if it is not its positive duty, to do so, to appropriate to tho general uses of the government. State ex rel. Moore vs. City, 31 An. 726 ,• B. Saloy vs City, 33 An. 79.
A holder of municipal bonds, the interest on which is'to be paid with money to be appropriated out of general revenues of the corporation, has no vested right in any particular rate of taxation, and could not by mandamus compel the levy of a tax to provide a fund out of which his interest shall be paid. A fortiori, where the limit of taxation has been reduced for general purposes, to a rate intended to provide only the necessasy alimony of the government, the duty to provide for the payment of such interest is, ipso facto, removed or repealed; and whatever other remedy the creditor may have, ho cannot by mandamus compel the appropriation of money to pay his claim out of funds expressly and exclusively dedicated to- the necessary current expenses of the government.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Tlie opinion of tlie Court was delivered by
Lew, J.
The motion to dismiss, herein, is similar to and based on the same grounds as that in N°, 8232, just decided, .and for the reasons therein given, this motion is denied.