Case Name: CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. VINCI
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-11-27
Citations: 153 La. 528
Docket Number: No. 25430
Parties: CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. VINCI.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., being absent from the state, takes no part in the decision of the case.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 527–531

Head Matter:
(96 South. 110)
No. 25430.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. VINCI.
(Nov. 27, 1922.
On Rehearing, April 2, 1923.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Courts <&wkey;224(7) — Supreme Court has jurisdiction when illegality of ordinance in contest, though ordinance sustained.
Article 7, § 10, Const. 1921, gives this court appellate jurisdiction in all cases “where the legality, or constitutionality of any fine, forfeiture, or penalty imposed by a parish, municipal corporation, board, or subdivision of the state shall be in contest, whatever may be the amount thereof”; and it is not necessary that the ordinance imposing same shall have been declared illegal or unconstitutional. As to acts of the Legislature, the Constitution provides a different rule.
On the Merits.'
2. Food &wkey;sl— Ordinance not oppressive or illegal because requiring seller to ascertain whether milk is within prohibition.
An ordinance intended to suppress the sale of unwholesome or adulterated milk is not oppressive or illegal because, in the public in terest, it puts upon the seller the burden of ascertaining at his peril that the article he sells is not within the prohibition- of the ordinance.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Rehearing.
3. Criminal law &wkey;l 134(3) — Appeal from judgment on demurrer dismissed as moot where appeal on merits has resulted in acquittal.
> Appeal from judgment overruling demurrer will be dismissed as moot where since rendition of such judgment appeal to criminal district court on the merits has been tried and resulted in defendant’s acquittal.
Appeal from First Recorder’s Court of New Orleans; J. R. Leininger, Recorder.
'Criminal prosecution by the City of New Orleans against Thomas Yinci, Sr., for violation of a municipal ordinance. From á judgment overruling. a demurrer, defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed on rehearing.
Alf 3. Bonpmo, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Ben Daly, of New Orleans, for appellee.
St. Clair Adams, of New Orleans, amicus curias.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
ST. PAUL, J.
Defendant was convicted of violating -an ordinance of the city of New Orleans. He put at issue in the court below, the constitutionality and legality of the ordinance.
The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction, the trial court not having declared' the ordinance unconstitutional or illegal, but, on the contrary, having sustained said ordinance, and defendant having been fined only $10.
The motion to dismiss must be denied. Article 7, § 10, Constitution of 1921 (article 85, Const. 1898 and 1913; article 81, Const. 1879), gives this court appellate jurisdiction in all cases "where the legality, or constitutionality of any fine, forfeiture, or penalty imposed by a parish, municipal corporation, board, or subdivision of the state shall be in contest, whatever may be the amount thereof," as well as in cases where the ordinance has actually been declared unconstitutional. (Italics ours.)
It is clear, therefore, that it suffices to give this court jurisdiction that the constitutionality or legality of the ordinance was "in contest," even though it was not declared to be unconstitutional. In Shreveport v. Mackie, 140 La. 724, 73 South. 842, this court entertáined an appeal in a case where the legality of a municipal ordinance was merely in contest, and the ordinance not been declared illegal or unconstitutional. It is true, however, that no point of jurisdiction appears to have been made.
Crowley v. Brande, 128 La. 457, 54 South. 940, and Wolf v. Commission Council, 144 La. 107, 80 South. 216, holding views in conflict with those herein above expressed/ are now overruled.
Young v. Crowley, 131 La. 780, 60 South. 242, McMain v. Pollock, 108 La. 594, 32 South. 558, and McCune v. White, 137 La. 310, 68 South. 621, have no application, as those cases involved acts of the Legislature, as to which the Constitution makes no such provision for an appeal to this court except where the statute has actually been declared unconstitutional.
The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
O'NIELL, J., being absent from the state, takes no part in the decision of the case.