City of New Orleans v. N.O, M. & T. R. Co.
108 U.S. 15 (1882)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

City of New Orleans v. N.O, M. & T. R. Co., 108 U.S. 15 (1882)

City of New Orleans v. New Orleans,

Mobile & Texas Railroad Company

Argued November 14-15, 1882

Decided November 20, 1882

108 U.S. 15

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Syllabus

The Board of Liquidation of the City Debt of New Orleans, a corporate body created by the Legislature of Louisiana, created pending the appeal of this suit, appeared and claimed authority over the subject matter of the controversy. The court refused to enter judgment according to the terms of stipulation made with the attorney of the City of New Orleans by authority of the city council without first giving the board opportunity to be heard.

Page 108 U. S. 16

Motion to dismiss the appeal.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case was continued at the request of the parties on the 10th of October. The appellee now presents a stipulation for the dismissal of the appeal, signed by the city attorney of New Orleans pursuant to the terms of a compromise of the matter in dispute made with the city council, and asks to have the appropriate order entered upon that stipulation. The Board of Liquidation of the City Debt of New Orleans comes to resist the entry of any such order on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, authority over the subject matter of the controversy has been transferred from the city council to that board, and that the compromise which has been effected is not binding. The board also asks permission to prosecute the appeal in the name of the city.

It is conceded that the city council made the compromise which is claimed and that the appellee is entitled to a dismissal of the appeal if the council had authority to do what it has done and the compromise was fairly made. The dispute as to the authority of the council presents questions too important to be settled summarily on these motions. It is therefore ordered that the cause and pending motions be continued until the next term, and that the appeal be then dismissed in accordance with the stipulation on file unless the Board of Liquidation begin and prosecute, without unnecessary delay, in some court of competent jurisdiction, an appropriate proceeding to set aside the compromise which has been made with the city council. *

* The Board of Liquidation appeared, and on the 12th of November, 1883, after argument, the decree below was affirmed. See109 U. S. 109 U.S. 231.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.