LOUISIANA EX REL. NEW ORLEANS GAS LIGHT COMPANY
v.
CITY COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS & ANOTHER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court dismissed Louisiana's appeal seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the New Orleans City Council to exhaust its taxing powers to satisfy a judgment owed to the New Orleans Gas Light Company. The Court held it lacked jurisdiction because the relator had not claimed denial of any right, privilege, or immunity under the Constitution, and the state court's judgment did not deny any specific taxing authority but merely required the council to exercise whatever powers it lawfully possessed to pay the debt.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
We have no jurisdiction in this case. No title, right, privilege, or immunity set up or claimed by the relator under the Constitution of the United States has been denied bim by the-judgment of the court below. The prayer of the petition .for mandamus was, among other things, that in order to secure a-sufficient fund to provide for the payment of certain judgments in favor of the relator against the city of New Orleans, the council of the city might be required, if necessary, to “ exhaust their powers of taxation, and continue so to do until relator’s judgment is paid* and satisfied.” No request was made in the petition for a determination of the extent of the power of taxation for the purpose specified. A judgment was entered in the court of original jurisdiction granting the writ in the exact form '.prayed for. This judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the State on appeal. After .the-judgment of affirmance was entered, a rehearing was asked, in order that the judgment of the court of original jurisdiction might be made more clear and specific. This was refused. No right to any specific rate of taxation has been denied. That question has been left unsettled, and there was nothing in the pleadings which required the court to do more than it has done. As the judgment is for a writ requiring the council to do all it has in law the power to do to raise the money to pay the relator’s demand, no right has been denied. While the court might have defined in more exact terms the precise power to be exercised, its omission to do so is not ground for appeal to our jurisdiction.
It follows that the writ of error i/n this case must le dismissed for wa/nt of jurisdiction, a/n.d cm order to that effect is made.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armstrong v. Egeler, 563 F.2d 796 (6th Cir. 1977)…does not apply in state courts, citing Roddy v. Black, 516 F. 2d 1380, 1383 (6th Cir.), cert. den. 423 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 226, 46 L.Ed.2d 147 (1975), and Lawrence v. Russell, 430 F. 2d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 920, 91 S.Ct. 907, 27 L.Ed. 823 (1971). But it does not follow from these two propositions, as the majority concludes, that the Harris result does not apply in state courts because, while it relied on Rule 11, it also expressed the federal constitutional standard. Roddy states onl…