Court Opinion

ID: 4815235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-21 18:31:01.994104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:47.980836
License: Public Domain

TOBIAS, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part.
hi respectfully concur in part and dissent in part for the reasons assigned by Judge Lobrano with one slight difference addressed below.
I find that in view of the 17 September 1929 compromise and 1 April 1930 judgment,1 the Mayor must seek and listen to the advice of the Advisory Committee, but need not follow that committee’s advice. The 2003 (“Nagin”) by-law2 that does not appear to have been blessed by statute or ordinance did nothing, in my view, to overrule or supersede specific ordinances, 12such as Sections 2-158, 2-159, and 70-41 of the New Orleans city ordinances. I thus do not find that the Mayor need follow the advice of the Advisory Committee.

. It is indeed puzzling why the then Mayor would have ever entered into the compromise that was blessed by the judgment in view of the trust instrument. I do not see any case or controversy that existed at the time that would have given rise to a bona fide cause of action. At the time of the establishment of the trust, Mr. Wisner was head and master of the community with full statutory authority to make a donation of community assets without consent of his spouse and establish the trust.

. I do not understand what a "by-law” is in the context of trust law. If it is a contract, I am not sure how such fits into the overall scheme of a trust for public purposes because the duty of a trustee is to the beneficiaries first and foremost. It is inappropriate for a trustee to contract away the trustee's powers in a way that infringes upon the trustee's duties.