State ex rel. Violet Trapping Co., Inc. v. Grace

• Decision Date: 29 April 1935
• Docket Number: 33304
• Citation: 182 La. 405,162 So. 26
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. VIOLET TRAPPING CO., Inc., v. GRACE, Land Office Register, at al

162 So. 26

182 La. 405

STATE ex rel. VIOLET TRAPPING CO., Inc., v. GRACE, Land Office Register, at al

No. 33304

Supreme Court of Louisiana

April 29, 1935

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1935

Appeal from Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge; W. Carruth Jones, Judge.

Proceeding for mandamus and injunction by the State on the relation of the Violet Trapping Company, Incorporated, against Lucile May Grace, Register of the State Land Office, and others. From an adverse judgment, relator appeals.

Affirmed.

Edward Rightor and Edwin J. Prinz, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Emmet Alpha, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Bentley G. Byrnes, of New Orleans, amicus curiae on behalf of Trappers' & Fishermen's Union, Local 18408.

Milling Godchaux, Saal & Milling, of New Orleans, amicus curiae representing Bondholders' Protective Committee for Drainage Bonds of Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeuf Drainage Dist.

OPINION

BRUNOT, Justice.

This is a mandamus proceeding coupled with a prayer for injunctive relief. An alternative writ of mandamus and a rule nisi issued. The respondents filed the following exceptions to the suit, viz.: First, to the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae and ratione materiae. Second, that the state of Louisiana is the real defendant in the suit, and that the state cannot be sued without its consent. Third, that there is a misjoinder of parties defendant and causes of action. Fourth, that title to real estate cannot be determined in a summary proceeding. Fifth, that relator's petition does not disclose a right or cause of action. Respondents also filed their answer.

The holders of bonds of the Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeuf Drainage District intervened in the suit, and Louis M. Vinsanau, clerk of court of St. Bernard parish, a party defendant, filed his answer thereto.

The issues raised by the pleadings were heard and submitted to the court, and judgment was rendered thereon maintaining the respondents' exceptions of no right and no cause of action, recalling the alternative writ of mandamus and the rule nisi theretofore issued on relator's application, denying all other relief prayed for, reserving the rights of intervenors to be asserted in an appropriate proceeding, and dismissing relator's suit at its cost. From this judgment the relator appealed.

In disposing of the issues presented by the pleadings, the learned trial judge comments upon the facts disclosed and correctly says:

"As a basis for the application for the writs of mandamus and injunction relator alleges the execution of a lease by the register of the state land office on October 3, 1924, in favor of the board of commissioners of the Bayou Terre Aux-Boeuf Drainage District, embracing all lands within said district adjudicated to the state during the years 1912 to 1924, inclusive, for nonpayment of taxes; that said lease was for a term of ten years and on January 18, 1934, was renewed for an additional period of ten years; that relator attached to the petition lists of said land covered by the original and renewal lease. Relator further alleges that it became the assignee of said two leases with all of the rights and privileges of the drainage district; that relator has therefore a property right in all lands included in said lease. It is then alleged by relator that the certificates of redemption heretofore mentioned were issued by the register of the state land office under Act No. 161 of 1934, as aforesaid, and covered lands embraced in said lease. Relator then quotes an excerpt from article 10, § 11, of the Constitution of 1921, relative to redemptions, in effect at the time of the granting of said lease, and also the same constitutional provision, as amended by Act No. 147 of 1932 and attacks the constitutionality of said Act No. 161 of 1934, and of Act No. 175 of 1934, a statute in pari materia, on various grounds. Relator alleges irreparable injury and loss; that demand has been made in vain and that it has no adequate remedy other than by mandamus.

"A committee of three, representing the owners of certain bonds issued by said drainage district, which includes all the territory embraced within the limits of the parish of St. Bernard, and upon which lands an acreage tax has been levied to meet the payment of said bonds and interest, intervened, joined with the relator in its demand and alleged the unconstitutionality of the two statutes on the same and other grounds.

"The register of the state land office, the Orangedale Colony Company and the St. Bernard Syndicate pleaded the following exceptions in the alternative:

"That the court is without jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae; that the state of Louisiana is the real defendant and cannot be sued without its consent; misjoinder of parties defendant and causes of action; that title to real estate cannot be determined in a summary proceeding; no right or cause of action.

"The Plaquemines Land Company filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of interest; the clerk and recorder of the parish of St. Bernard answered, and the other respondents, except the Orangedale Colony Company, with reservation of their exceptions, likewise answered. The Illinois Louisiana Land Company made no appearance.

"The exceptions to the jurisdiction of the court and misjoinder of parties defendant and causes of action, are overruled on the authority of State ex rel. Navo v. Baynard, State Auditor et al., 176 La. 520, 146 So. 41; Erskine Heirs v. Gardiner, 166 La. 1098, 1101, 118 So. 453; Reardon v. Dickinson, 156 La. 556, 561, 100 So. 715; and State ex rel. Elston et al. v. Parish Democratic Executive Committee, 173 La. 844, 138 So. 857.

"The exception that this is a suit against the state is likewise overruled, and in accord with Richardson v. Liberty Oil Company et al., 143 La. 130, 78 So. 326, and Abbott et al. v. Louisiana Securities Commission, 149 La. 354, 89So. 211. See, also, State v. Nicholls, 42 La.Ann. 209, 7 So. 738, and State v. Heard, 47 La.Ann. 1679, 18 So. 746, 47 L. R. A. 512.

"Respondents' next exception that title to real estate cannot be determined in a summary proceeding is answered by what was said in State ex rel. Bond v. Register of Conveyances et al., 162 La. 362, 110 So. 559, 560, to wit: 'Because relator might have instituted a direct action is no reason why he is not entitled to proceed by mandamus. Code Prac art. 831, provides that a judge may, in his discretion, issue a writ of mandamus even when the complainant has other means of relief, if the slowness of an ordinary...