Case Name: Board of Health vs. Maginnis Cotton Mills
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1894-04
Citations: 46 La. Ann. 806
Docket Number: No. 11,381
Parties: Board of Health vs. Maginnis Cotton Mills.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 806–814

Head Matter:
No. 11,381.
Board of Health vs. Maginnis Cotton Mills.
On Motion to Pile Transcript of Appeal Without Deposit foe Costs.
The Board of Health having failed to show that it comes within the statute “ex emptingthe State from furnishing security for costs in the courts of this State,” a rule taken in its behalf, upon the clerk of this court, requiring him to file a transcript without first furnishing the security or making the cash deposit required by the rules of this court, will be discharged.
On the Merits.
The nuisance charged, if it exists at all, is of that character which should be abated.
A civil action on behalf of the public will lie if the nuisance is public.
A nuisance per se may be abated which affects the health, and under proper limitations and restrictions a writ of injunetian may be issued.
The functions of that writ, in behalf of the public, should only be exercised on the broad grounds of preventing irreparable injury, interminable litigation, and the protection of a public right. Their exercise is subject to the same perils and liabilities as an individual, if the thing abated is not in fact a nuisance.
The plaintiff has alleged a nuisance per se.
Por the trial of an exception of no cause of action, the facts are necessarily admitted.
The right to the writ, at this point of the ease, is shown on the face of the papers, and therefore the injunction is reinstated for further proceeding.
Theard, J. PPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans.
On Motion to File Transcript op Appeal Without Deposit eor Costs.
Frank McGloin, Attorney for the Board of Health, for the motion:
This Honorable Court has time and again declared that the State of Louisiana, as the sovereign, and as matter of privilege, is entitled to litigate in her own courts without payment of costs. Succession of Townsend, 40 An. 66; State vs. Taylor, 84 An. 978; State vs. Taylor, 83 An. 1270.
The Board of Health is a branch of the State government, having under its care the health of the entire State. Act 1882, No. 92, p. 114, Sec. 4; Revised Statutes 1870, Title Quarantine; Act 1882, No. 82, p. 103, Secs. 5, 6.
The business which the Board of Health conducts is strictly the business of the State, and it is a branch of the State government purely and simply. If the sovereignty of the State protects it from paying costs in its own courts, this sovereign exemption should apply to its business by whatsoever agency conducted. The State must act through agents.
On the Merits.
Frank MoGloin for the Board of Health, Plaintiff and Appellant:
Issues or outlets through which water flows from the water closets or cesspools of a large factory into the gutters of a city are nuisances per se, public in their character. Parker and Worthington on Public Health and Safety, Secs. 177, 187, note; Wood on Nuisances, Ed. 1893, Sec. 679, p„ 799; lb., pp. 150, 582; Board of Health vs. Casey, 3 N. Y., Supp. 399; 18 N. Y. St. 251; Board of Health vs. Hutchinson, 12 Stew. Eq. 218.
In this State, the writ of injunction is a statutory remedy; anda legal remedy, as well as equitabie. It will issue at the instance of the city of New Orleans to abate a public nuisance.
A municipal corporation, charged to preserve the public health within its corporate limits, may enjoin a public nuisance, notwithstanding its police regulations impose a fine upon those establishing such nuisance. Wood on Nuisances, Ed. 1898, Sec. 777, p. 1119; Sec. 748, p. 974; 14 An. 274; 11 M. 620; 36 An. 163.
The Board of Health of the State of Louisiana has jurisdiction to enact sanitary ordinances for operation within the city of New Orleans, and is authorized to cause the removal of things prejudicial to the public health, and to aid in discharge of this duty it may seek out injunction against persistent public nuisances. Act 14 of 1870, extra session; Act 80 of 1877; Act 92 of 1882.
Gilmore & Baldwin Attorneys for Defendants and Appellees:
An injunction will not be granted to restrain an alleged nuisance where there is an adequate remedy by statute. Wood on Nuisances, S. 777, p. 1119.
The existence of a legal remedy in cases of alleged nuisances will be sufficient ground for withholding an injunction. High on Injunctions, S. 745.
Where an injunction granted ex parte has been dissolved by the lower court on exceptions to the jurisdiction and of no cause of action, the Supreme Court will not reverse the finding of the court below and grant the injunction where there is adequate remedy provided by municipal ordinance for procedure on abatement of nuisance.
A municipal ordinance is a statute within the meaning of the word as used in the expression of courts and text writers, “Adequate remedy by statute.”
On Motion to File Transcript of Appeal Without Deposit for Costs.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
On motion of the counsel for the Board of Health as appellant, a rule was granted upon the clerk of this court to show cause why its appeal should not be filed without making the cash deposit required of other parties litigant, because the Board of Health,.acting in the interest of the State and its people, is entitled to litigate in the courts of this State without the payment of costs.
In answer to the rule the clerk avers that (1) there is no law of this State which exempts the plaintiff in rule from making the deposit required by the rules of this court; (2) nor is there any law of this State which relieves the plaintiff in rule from the payment of clerk's costs incurred in this court.
Under the law the clerk of this court is entitled to demand and receive fees which are fixed. R. S., Sec. 756.
Under the rules of this court the party applying for the filing of a transcript in a cause in this court must first render to the clerk his bond and security, or make a deposit of twenty dollars. Rule 2. The contention of plaintiff in rule, that the Board of Health being a part of the machinery of the State government, can not, for that reason, be required to pay costs or furnish security for costs, is applicable with equal force to every municipal and parochial corporation in the State — they constituting a part of the machinery of the State government also.
The law exempts the State from furnishing security for costs, but the exemption must be strictly construed — the language of the statute being that " no court of this State, nor officer thereof, shall demand of the State, or of the Attorney General, any security for costs, or advance costs," etc. Sec. 1, Act 65 of 1884.
Counsel for appellant has referred us to the following cases as supporting this theory of plaintiff in rule, viz.: State vs. Taylor, 34 An. 978; Succession of Townsend, 40 An. 66; State vs. Taylor, 33 An. 1270.
In the first ease cited the court said: " By special legislation all costs incurred in criminal prosecutions are to be paid by the respective parishes in which the offence charged may have been committed. R. S., See. 1042. .
" Hence, it would be a more than idle ceremony to exact of the State security for costs which are not chargeable to her. 1 It is well settled in American jurisprudence that the sovereign never pays costs.' This doctrine, which is essential to our system of gov ernment, was recently recognized by us in the case of the State vs. Succession of Taylor. 33 An. 1271."
The same principle was recognized in Succession of Townsend, 40 An. 66, and followed in State ex rel. Attorney General vs. Lazarus, 40 An. 856.
It is the duty of the plaintiff in rule to make out a clear ease of exemption from the rule of law applicable to other litigants, but this it has not done, and its rule must be discharged.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff's rule be discharged at its costs.