State ex rel. Porterie v. Walmsley
Decision Date | 04 February 1935 |
Docket Number | 33251,33246 |
Citation | 181 La. 597,160 So. 91 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE ex rel. PORTERIE, Atty. Gen., v. WALMSLEY, Mayor, et al |
Rehearing Denied March 4, 1935
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Wm. H. Byrnes Jr., Judge.
Suit by the State, on the relation of Gaston L. Porterie, Attorney General, against T. Semmes Walmsley, Mayor, and others. From a judgment entered upon defendants' return to plaintiff's rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, perpetuating the rule, and issuing a preliminary injunction, defendants appeal.
Affirmed and cause remanded.
E. M Robbert, B. I. Cahn, and Henry B. Curtis, all of New Orleans, for appellants T. S. Walmsley and others.
J. C. Henriques, of New Orleans, for appellant Board of Liquidation of the City Debt.
Harold A. Moise, James Wilkinson, and Huey P. Long, all of New Orleans, for appellants Board of Com'rs of the Port of New Orleans and others.
Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., and George M. Wallace and James O'Connor, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
This is a suit by the state, and by the Attorney General, in his official capacity, he being charged with the duty of representing the state in all judicial proceedings in which the state has an interest, either as plaintiff, defendant, or intervener.
It is alleged by the plaintiffs that Act No. 36 of the Second Extra Session of the Legislature, approved November 21, 1934, is unconstitutional, null, and void for the six reasons enumerated in article 13 of the petition; that if the provisions of said act are complied with, irreparable injury will be done to the state, the city of New Orleans, the property taxpayers of said city, and to certain of its bondholders; and that the several officers and boards mentioned in article 15 of the petition will comply with the provisions of said act, unless enjoined and restrained from so doing.
After praying for citation and service of the petition upon the officers and boards named therein, the continuing verbiage of the prayer is in the following words:
A rule nisi and a temporary restraining order issued, as prayed for, and the rule was made returnable on December 11, 1934.
In a supplemental petition, relator and petitioner amended article 13 of the petition by adding thereto six additional reasons for challenging the constitutionality of Act No. 36 of the Second Extra Session of 1934, approved November 21, 1934.
In response to the rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, all of the defendants, except the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, the Board of Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District, Louisiana State Board of Health, and Board of Control of the New Basin Canal and Shell Road, excepted to the original and supplemental petitions upon the ground that the state of Louisiana and the Attorney General have no interest in the matters alleged in the petition, or in the amendment thereof, nor capacity to stand in judgment in this suit, or to represent the taxpayers or bondholders affected by Act No. 36 of the Second Extra Session of 1934; and, therefore, the petitions disclose no right and no cause of action.
These respondents also pleaded the unconstitutionality of Act No. 36 of the Second Extra Session of 1934. The four defendants named supra filed a joint return to the rule, from which we quote article 9 thereof:
The issues thus presented were taken up in due course, whereupon the learned trial judge suggested to counsel that, if they consented thereto, he would try the case on the rule and on the merits and would decide all issues presented by the pleadings at one and the same time. Counsel for the board of liquidation of the city debt, the city of New Orleans, and the city board of health objected to a trial on the merits.
The judge's proposal to hear the whole case was doubtless prompted by the showing in the record that the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works had allocated to the city of New Orleans $ 2,570,000, but said allocation had been suspended pending the final determination of this suit. In view of the emergent need of the sum allocated to the city of New Orleans, we also think that this case should be finally decided on the merits as speedily as is consistent with the legal rights of all parties to this suit.
The case was tried on the rule, the exceptions pleaded were overruled, the rule was perpetuated, and a preliminary injunction issued, as prayed for in the petition. All of the respondents appealed from the judgment. The appeals were brought up to this court in two transcripts, but they were consolidated and submitted together.
We are of the opinion that Judge Byrnes correctly held that the state has a sufficient interest in the matters alleged in the petition to institute and prosecute this suit; and we quote, with approval, from the opinion of the learned judge, his reasons for so holding. After incorporating in his opinion excerpts from the brief of counsel for the board of liquidation of the city debt, the judge says:
To continue reading
Request your trial- State ex rel. Porterie v. Walmsley
-
State ex rel. Porterie v. Smith
... ... from carrying into effect their unlawful purposes, [182 La ... 680] and from interfering with her agents in the ... execution of the legislative will." (Italics ours.) ... In the ... recent case of State ex rel. Gaston Porterie, ... Attorney-General v. T. Semmes Walmsley, Mayor, et al., ... 181 La. 597, 160 So. 91, we had occasion to consider this ... subject-matter, and held that under article 7, section 56 of ... the Constitution of 1921, the Attorney General and his ... assistants were authorized to attend to all legal matters in ... which the state had an ... ...
-
State ex rel. Guste v. Board of Highways, 9214
...all state agencies and subdivisions, such power being implied from the nature of his office . 'Subsequently, in State v. Walmsley (181 La. 597), 160 So. 91 (Sup . Ct.1935), the Attorney General sued to prevent the sale of bonds and the collection of a property tax in the City of New Orleans......
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Doucet
... ... 56 of Article 7 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, and ... also by decisions of this court in State ex rel. Porterie, v ... Walmsley, et al., 181 La. 597, 160 So. 91, and State ex rel ... Porterie, et al. v. Smith et al., 182 La. 662, 162 So. 413 ... ...