Hart v. City of New Orleans

Decision Date27 May 1882
Citation12 F. 292
PartiesHART v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. [1]
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

A. G Brice and E. H. Farrar, for plaintiff.

Charles F. Buck, City Attorney, for defendant.

PARDEE C.J.

The plaintiff, having obtained judgment against the defendant has taken out execution and garnishment process and seized the amounts due from two of the city street railroad companies as a bonus for the privileges granted, and the interest of the city in the sugar-shed warehouses. The judgment obtained is absolute, except a restriction that in case resort is had to court for a mandamus to compel the levy of a tax to pay the judgment, regard shall be had to the legislative limitations on taxation during the several years that the obligations upon which the judgment was founded were contracted. The city has taken these proceedings now under consideration, for the purpose of having the seizures set aside.

1. It is claimed that no execution at all can issue upon the judgment, because (1) the judgment is not absolute, and (2) because act No. 5 of 1870, extra session, prohibits the issuing of executions against the city of New Orleans, at least until after certain registry is made of the judgment. The judgment is absolute and condemning the city, and it is the settled jurisprudence of this court that act No. 5 of 1870 has no effect as to the remedies or judgment rendered in the federal courts. This has been determined by all three of the judges authorized to hold this court, in as many distinct cases.

The remarks of the supreme court in Louisiana v. New Orleans, 102 U.S. 203, to the effect that 'so much of said act as requires such filing and registration before a judgment creditor can procure a warrant for the amount due or resort to other means to enforce payment thereof, does not render less effective the pre-existing remedies, and is therefore not in conflict with the contract clause of the constitution,' evidently refer to another and distinct question than the practice of the federal courts in aid of judgments rendered by them, and that question was whether the provisions of said act No. 5 impaired the obligations of pre-existing contracts.

The proposition that the legislature of the state of Louisiana can control the execution of judgments in the federal courts in the state involves the very life and jurisdiction of these courts. The one restriction of act No. 5 may be reasonable, but how about the rest of the act, which prohibits any execution at all?

Counsel may divide the act and say registration is reasonable therefore you shall register your judgment; not to have any remedy is unreasonable, therefore you may have execution; but the court cannot so divide the act. We think we must take all or none. If we take all of the act the court can issue neither mandamus nor execution against the city in any event, and we would also have to take section 33 of act No. 7 of the same legislature, which provides that the city of New Orleans may have injunctions, appeals, etc., without the affidavits, bonds, or security required from other litigants.

The whole question is very clearly discussed upon principle and authority in the case of New Orleans v. Morris, 3 Woods, 115.

2. Because the moneys seized are moneys due the city as a part of the revenue of the corporation, applicable to the current expenses of municipal administration. It is not considered that such sums are now or ever were any portion of the regular revenue of the city, even if the last city budget enumerates them. These sums are the purchase price of property which the city has sold, the same to be paid in instalments. The supreme court of the state has decided that such funds are dedicated by law to the payment of either the bonded or floating debt of the city. See State ex rel. Gas-light Co. v. New Orleans, 32 La.Ann. 268.

3. Because the city's interest in the sugar sheds seized and the squares of ground on which the sheds are built are public things, not seizable or alienable as against the city or the public. The leasehold interests of the city in the sugar sheds-- that is, her right the receive as rents 10 per cent. of the gross amount of receipts, and her right of reversion in the buildings--stand upon the same footing as the sums due from the street railroads.

As to the ownership or public character of the squares of ground seized there is no distinction between this case and that of Morris v. New...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State, ex rel. State Land Board v. Blake
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • April 6, 1933
    ...... & Crafts, of Delta, for defendants. . . Soule &. Spalding, of Salt Lake City, for intervener. . . ELIAS. HANSEN, Justice. STRAUP, C. J., and FOLLAND, EPHRAIM ...787-789; also, vol. 6, § 2729, p. 641;. Egerton v. Third Municipality of New. Orleans , 1 La. Ann. 435; Klein v. New. Orleans , 99 U.S. 149, 25 L.Ed. 430; Beadles v. Smyser , ... Zacharie , 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 648, 8 L.Ed. 532:. Hart v. City of New Orleans (C. C.) 12 F. 292; Collin County Nat. Bank of McKinley Tex. v. ......
  • City of St. Louis v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 30, 1900
    ...63 Cal. 447; 15 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 1068, 1069; Brown v. Gates, 15 W.Va. 131; Birmingham v. Rumsey, 63 Ala. 352; Hart v. New Orleans, 12 F. 292; Davenport Ins. Co., 17 Iowa 276. (6) The principle adopted as to value and damages was erroneous, and the value allowed for the property ......
  • School District of fort Smith v. Board of Improvement
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 28, 1898
    ...to discharge its duties to the public. 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4 Ed.) § 576; 2 Morawetz, Priv. Corp. § 1125; 2 Beach, Pub. Corp. § 1422; 12 F. 292; 15 Cal. 631; 3 Woods, 103; S. C. 18 Cas. 111; 105 U.S. 600; 1 Duval (Ky.), 295; 15 W.Va. 131; 23 La.Ann. 61. "The levy of a municipal tax by de fac......
  • Beadles v. Fry
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 5, 1905
    ...Corporations, vol. 2, p. 1380, § 1422; 17 Cyc. p. 979, § 9a, Klein v. City of New Orleans, 99 U.S. 149, 25 L.Ed. 430; Hart v. City of New Orleans (C. C.) 12 F. 292; State ex rel. Courter v. Buckles et al. (Ind. 35 N.E. 846, 52 Am. St. Rep. 476; City of Laredo v. Benavides et al. (Tex. Civ. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT