94 U.S. 246 (1877), Foster v. Master & Wardens Of Port Of New Orleans
|Citation:||94 U.S. 246, 24 L.Ed. 122|
|Party Name:||FOSTER v. MASTER AND WARDENS OF THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS.|
|Case Date:||March 13, 1877|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. H. J. Leovy for the plaintiff in error. No counsel appeared for the defendants in error.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.
This controversy has arisen out of an act of the legislature of Louisiana, approved March 6, 1869. By the first section it was made the duty of the master and wardens of the port of New Orleans to offer their services to make a survey of the hatches of all sea-going vessels which should arrive at that port, and a penalty was prescribed for the neglect of this duty. The second section declares 'that it shall be unlawful for any person other than the said master and wardens, or their legally constituted deputy, to make any survey of the hatches of seagoing vessels coming to said port of New Orleans, or to make any survey of damaged goods coming on board of such vessels, whether such survey be made on board or on shore, or to give certificates on orders for sale of such damaged goods at auction, or to do any other of the acts and things prescribed by law for said master and wardens to do and perform; and the person doing such illegal and forbidden acts, his instigators and encouragers, shall be liable and bound to pay in solido to the said master and wardens $100, with damages and costs, for each of said illegal and forbidden acts so done.'
The petition avers that Foster resides in the city of New Orleans, and has been and is continually violating the provisions of the act by making surveys of the hatches of sea-going vessels arriving at that port, and of damaged goods, and has
been and is engaged in acting as, and performing the duties which belonged to, the master and wardens of the port.
An injunction was prayed for. It was granted by the lower court, and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. A writ of error was thereupon sued out by Foster, and the case is thus brought before this court for review.
The defendants in error have failed to enter their appearance, and no brief in their behalf has been submitted. We shall, therefore, devote but few remarks...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP