Louisiana v. New Orleans

• Decision Date: 01 October 1880
• Parties: LOUISIANA v. NEW ORLEANS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

102 U.S. 203

102 U.S. 203

26 L.Ed. 132

LOUISIANA v. NEW ORLEANS.

October Term, 1880

ERRORto the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.

Morris Ranger recovered, May 1, 1874, against the city of New Orleans certain judgments. To enforce the collection of them, he instituted, June 21, 1879, this proceeding, in the name of the State on his relation in the Third District Court of the Parish of Orleans, for a peremptory mandamus to compel the mayor and administrators of the city to levy and collect a special tax sufficient in amount to satisfy the judgments.

The following statement of facts facts signed by the attorneys for the respective parties was filed:——

'1st, That the judgments which are made the basis of this mandamus proceeding were rendered for the amounts—principal, interest, and costs—and at the dates stated in the petition, and had for their basis bonds issued by the city of New Orleans in 1854, to the New Orleans, Jackson, and Great Northern Railroad Company, and New Orleans, Opelousas, and Great Western Railroad Company.

'2d, That writs of fieri facias were issued on said judgments, and after demand made upon the city were returned nulla bona, and that the city has no property liable to seizure and sale.

'3d, That said judgments have never been registered in accordance with the provisions of the act of 1870.

'It is further agreed that this statement of facts is made in lieu of the note of evidence taken at the trial, which has been mislaid.'

The remaining facts and the statute bearing upon the case are set forth in the opinion of the court.

Mr. D. C. Labatt for the plaintiff in error.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes here from the Supreme Court of Louisiana. On the 1st of May, 1874, the relator recovered in one of the courts of that State against the city of New Orleans, two judgments, amounting in the aggregate to $170,000, besides costs. Upon these judgments executions were issued and returned unsatisfied, after demand upon the officers of the city to point out property belonging to it subject to seizure, to be levied upon to satisfy the same. The relator thereupon presented a petition to the Third District Court of the Parish of Orleans, setting forth these facts and averring that it was the duty of the mayor and administrators of the city to provide for the payment of the judgments by levying and collecting a tax for that purpose; but that they refused to do this; and that he was unable to satisfy the judgments by the ordinary process of execution. He therefore prayed for an order upon the mayor and administrators to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to compel them to levy and collect a tax to satisfy the judgments.

The order to show cause was granted, and upon its return the respondents filed a peremptory exception to the relator's demand, denying that he was entitled to the relief prayed; but the District Court granted the writ. Its judgment was, on appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, reversed and a decree entered dismissing the petition. The case was then brought here.

The city authorities resisted the demand of the relator for the mandamus, on the ground that he had not registered his judgments as required by the provisions of the act No. 5 of 1870. That act divests the courts of the State of authority to allow any summary process or mandamus against the officers of the city of New Orleans to compel the issue and delivery of any order or warrant for the payment of money, or to enforce the payment of money claimed to be due from it to any person or corporation; and requires proceedings for the recovery of money claimed to be owing by the city to be conducted in the ordinary form of...