Case Name: State of Louisiana ex rel. Jacob Meyers vs. Board of Liquidation
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1881-01
Citations: 33 La. Ann. 124
Docket Number: No. 8038
Parties: State of Louisiana ex rel. Jacob Meyers vs. Board of Liquidation.
Judges: Levy, ¿T., absent.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 124–130

Head Matter:
No. 8038.
State of Louisiana ex rel. Jacob Meyers vs. Board of Liquidation.
A Motion in this Court, before the case is on trial, to strike out of the Transcript of Appeal documents alleged to have never been offered in evidence, is without precedent and will not be entertained.
Having obtained judgment from the District Court against the Board of Liquidation, declaring certain State bonds and warrants legal, and ordering the funding of them, under Act Ho. 3 of 1874, and the judgment of the District Court not being appealed from, the [Relator applied for a Mandamus to compel the Board of Liquidation to fund said bonds and warrants and issue in their stead the Consolidated Bonds provided for by law.
¿Held that, under Act Ho. 11 of 1875, the Board of Liquidation is to fund bonds or warrants, the legality of which is questioned, only alter said bonds or warrants have been declared legal and valid by the Supreme Court j and, therefore, the judgment of the District Court, though final, is not, under the special provision of said law, binding upon the Board of Liquidation.
'The [Relator himself, though the judgment of the District Court was in his favor, had the right to bring said judgment up for review by this Court, to meet the express and special requirement of the Statute.
j^PPEAL from the Fifth District Court, parish of Orleans. Rogers,
Kennard, Howe & Prentiss for the Relator and Appellant.
First — [Relator, having obtained on the 28th February, 1879, a final judgment against the Board of Liquidation, under the 3d section of the Act Ho. 3, of 1874, declaring his warrants “ to be legal and valid obligations of the State of Louisiana and fundable under Act Ho. 3, of 1874/’ and directing said Board “ to exchange the said warrants under and in accordance with the provisions of said Act Ho. 3, of 1874, for consolidated bonds under tbe provisions of said act,” and more than one year having elapsed from the rendition of said judgment, and no appeal having ever been taken; and the said Board having on the 7th July, 1880, adopted a resolution to fund said warrants; and having received the said warrants into its possession and destroyed them, and having given the usual receipt for them, which is made part of the petition herein, it was and is its plain duty to deliver the corresponding 60 per centum of bonds to relator.
■Second — Under the Articles of.the Code of Practice 829-844, the modern theory of mandamus in the other States of the Union is specially established in Louisiana, to the extent set out in these articles.
a. The writ is directed to public officers, to compel them to fulfill any of the duties attached to their office, or which may be legally required of them. C. P. 834.
&. The party who obtains the alternative writ is required to make full prima facie proof of his right by affidavit. He makes " oath of the facts thus alleged.” C. P. 840. The judicial mind acts at once on this proof. The writ is issued, directing the defendant to do the act, or show cause to the contrary. C. P. 841. If he show no cause the writ is-made [peremptory. State ex rel. Marin vs. Judge, Opinion Book Ho. 45, p. 575. If the answer is considered insufficient the writ is made peremptory. C. P. 843.
c. So far as the answer is concerned, anything in the nature of a general denial is of no avail. The relator being required to make oath to “truth of the facts thus alleged,, has the correlative right to have this oath respected, unless it is shown to be untrue, or that, if true, it does not justify the writ/ Watts vs. Police Jury, 11 An. 141. And this is the plain rule in the other States whence mandamus was derived. Levy vs. English, 4 Ark. 67; Bank vs. Canal Commissioners, 10 Wendell, H. Y. 25.
Third — In the case at bar the answer or return of the Board contains merely a verv vague general denial, and then a new and substantive defense, which seeks to go behind the matters, which, if they have any existence, were concluded by that judgment. All the allegations of fact, then, in relator’s petition, may be taken as true, and they are fully corroborated, if need be, by the documents, made part of the petition, and those offered • and filed with the exception of res judicata at the trial. Semple vs. Barrow, 2 An. 141 ; Canal Bank vs. MeGloin, 10 An. 241.
Fourth — On the 16th of July, 1880, at the trial, the relator, with excess of caution, filed the exception oí res judicata to that portion of the respondent’s answer which sought to go-behind a solemn final judgment between the same parties, and set up matters which, even if proved, (and they are not proved), are conclusively presumed to have been concluded by the relator’s judgment of February 28,1879. The exception was plainly a good one, and should have been maintained. Lev. C. C. 2286; Plicque vs. Pqrret, 19 La. 318 j Parker vs. Scrogin, 11 An. 629, 632; Prescott vs. Lewis, 12 An. 197; Baker vs. Frellsen, 32 Am p. 830; Granger vs. Singleton, 32 An. 898.
Fifth — Even if tbe respondent could he heard to prove the allegations to which the relator’s objection oí res judicata applies, no such proof was offered.
Sixth — The judge a quo in his written reasons, admits that the respondent should not be permitted to go behind the final judgment of relator. Yet he dismisses the relator’s suit. This was evident error. The judgment in the case at bar should he reversed, and judgment rendered for relator as prayed for.
J. O. Egan, Attorney General, and H. N. Ogden for Defendant and Appellant.
" The true object of the writ of mandamus is to enforce a clear legal right by compelling an officer to perform a legal duty, which he has no discretion to decline.” See Dictum of Mr. Justice Howe, in concurring in the decision in State ex rel. Smith & Co. vs. Board of Liquidation of the Floating debt of tbe State, 23d An. p. 390.
“ The party who applies for a mandamus must show that he has a clear legal right to the re* lief sought, and that he has no other adequate remedy.” 26th Ark. p.482.
The relator in a mandamus proceeding must make out his case. See recent decision in Hart-well vs. Johnson.
“ The party who desires to have a judgement, of which he complains, reversed, should have the testimony reduced to writing or a statement of facts made out; otherwise the presumption is that appellees fully made out their case below." Johnson vs. Spearing, 15 La. 232.
Facts which appear in the record only from a statement in the. opinion of the inferior judge that they were proved, are not i/n evidence. Tbe evidence itself must be produced. See authorities on p. 76 of Honnen, 1st vol.
A party must not only produce evidence, but see that it is received and noted. James Stafford vs. W. 3?. Harper, Sheriff, and James M. "Weymouth, recently decided.
Evidence, although in the record, if not offered below will not be noticed, Sargent vs. Slatter, 6th. An, p. 72.
If documents are to be considered in evidence, merely because they have been annexed as partof a petition, then a party desiring to use as proof documents clearly inadmissible, could secure his end by merely filing them before the trial as part of his petition, the right to object to their introduction would thus be destroyed.
Act No. 3, of 1874, section 3d, provides that “if any member of said Board of Liquidation shall knowingly audit and fund any illegal claim against the State, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction, be fined not less than five thousand dollars and be imprisoned not less than two years, at the discretion of the court” — and the supplemental act No. 11, of extra session of 1875, declares that “ the Board of Liquidation, constituted by the second section of act No. 3, approved January 24,1874, entitled an act to provide for funding obligations of the State, by exchange of bonds, etc., is hereby prohibited from issuing any bonds in exchange for outstanding bonds of the State, or warrants drawn previous to the passage of said act by the respective Auditors of Public Accounts of the State on the treasury thereof, forming items of State indebtedness, the legality or validity of which may have been or may be hereafter questioned, until such bonds or warrants shall first by final decree of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, have been declared legal and valid obligations against the State, and that the same were issued in strict conformity to law, and not in violation of the constitution of this State or of the United States, and for a valid consideration.”
-In the face of such a provision the judgment of an inferior court could never warrant or protect the Board of Liquidation in funding outstanding bonds or warrants, and this court could not order their exchange for consolidated bonds until it had seen and passed upon the warrants themselves.
‘There is no evidence in this case to contradict the full and explicit return, and no pretense that the warrants sought to be funded have ever been seen by the Supreme Court.

Opinion:
On Motion to Strike Out.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
The motion made to strike from the transcript documents which are alleged to have never been offered in evidence, is without precedent, and cannot be entertained at the present stage. "When the case will be on trial on its merits, whatever the same may be, it will be time enough for the mover to call the attention of the Court to their improper insertion, and to object to their being given any effect. We would otherwise be called upon unnecessarily to examine twice cases which should receive our consideration only once, and we would, •therefore, be uselessly and onerously taxed.
It is, therefore, ordered that the motion be declined without prejudice to the right of parties to act as suggested on the trial of the case x>n its merits.