Crescent City Live-Stock, Landing & Slaughter-House Co. v. Butchers' Union Live-Stock, Landing & Slaughter-House Co.

• Decision Date: 25 April 1882
• Citation: 12 F. 225
• Parties: CRESCENT CITY LIVE-STOCK, LANDING & SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CO. v. BUTCHERS' UNION LIVE-STOCK, LANDING & SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CO. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

12 F. 225

CRESCENT CITY LIVE-STOCK, LANDING & SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CO. v. BUTCHERS' UNION LIVE-STOCK, LANDING & SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CO. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Louisiana.

April 25, 1882

Thomas I. Semmes, Robert Mott, and Henry Kelly, for complainant.

B. R Forman, for defendant.

PARDEE C.J., (Billings, D.J., concurring.)

This cause has been set down for hearing, and heard, on demurrer and pleas. The demurrer is a general one, going to the whole bill. The questions raised by it have been practically disposed of on the hearing heretofore had for a preliminary injunction. As we adhere to our opinions given on that hearing, the demurrer must be overruled.

The first plea sets up a forfeiture of complainant's charter and rights by reason of having removed the grand slaughter-house, as originally located on the right bank of the Mississippi river, under the provisions of act No. 118 of 1869, to the left bank of the river. This plea is insufficient, as, under the terms of said act 118 of 1869 such removal would not work a forfeiture of complainant's charter and exclusive rights, even if such forfeiture could be inquired into collaterally.

The second plea is to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that both complainant and defendant are citizens of Louisiana. The federal question involved in this suit to-wit, the constitutionality of certain articles of the constitution of the state of Louisiana under which the defendant claims and exercises rights which impair the validity of complainant's contract, making a case in equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, gives the court jurisdiction. This is no longer an open question.

The third plea sets forth that there is a suit between the same parties on the same causes of action depending in the state court. This plea is insufficient in form and substance in now showing when the suit in the state court was commenced,-- whether prior or subsequent to this suit; whether issue was joined, etc. See Story, Eq. Pl. Sec. 737. And it is insufficient in law. Stanton v. Ebury, 93 U.S. 554; Ins. Co. v. Brune, 96 U.S. 588.

The fourth plea avers certain articles of the Louisiana constitution of 1879, abolishing monopolies and giving the regulation of slaughter-houses to the municipal corporations which latter have enlarged the limits within which slaughtering of animals for food may be done. The effect of the article of the Louisiana constitution abolishing monopolies, as affecting complainant's rights, has been passed upon in this case. We still adhere to the...