City of New Orleans v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of Louisiana

City of New Orleans v. Mitchell

150 So. 848, 178 La. 113, 1933 La. LEXIS 1820

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 30, 1933

DocketNo. 32392.

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 848 (City of New Orleans v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of New Orleans v. Mitchell, 150 So. 848, 178 La. 113, 1933 La. LEXIS 1820 (La. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

ROGERS, Justice.

The three defendants were charged in the First recorder’s court of the city of New Orleans with violating Ordinance No. 13974, C. S„ amending Ordinance No. 1025, A. S., for the suppression and punishment of vagrancy in the municipality. Defendants were convicted, and edch was sentenced to pay a fine of $10, or, in default of payment, to be imprisoned for a period of thirty days.

Defendants appealed, grounding their appeal on the alleged unconstitutionality of the ordinance under which they are being prosecuted. But the record does not show that the question was raised and determined in the court below, and, for that reason, the appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal.

The motion to dismiss must be sustained. Under our settled jurisprudence, this court will not entertain an appeal based on the alleged unconstitutionality of a municipal ordinance, unless it clearly appears that the issue was presented and passed on in the court below. See authorities cited in City of New Orleans v. Dunlap (La. Sup.) 150 So. 847, this day decided.

For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal herein is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROGERS, Justice.

The three defendants were charged in the First recorder’s court of the city of New Orleans with violating Ordinance No. 13974, C. S„ amending Ordinance No. 1025, A. S., for the suppression and punishment of vagrancy in the municipality. Defendants were convicted, and edch was sentenced to pay a fine of $10, or, in default of payment, to be imprisoned for a period of thirty days.

Defendants appealed, grounding their appeal on the alleged unconstitutionality of the ordinance under which they are being prosecuted. But the record does not show that the question was raised and determined in the court below, and, for that reason, the appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal.

The motion to dismiss must be sustained. Under our settled jurisprudence, this court will not entertain an appeal based on the alleged unconstitutionality of a municipal ordinance, unless it clearly appears that the issue was presented and passed on in the court below. See authorities cited in City of New Orleans v. Dunlap (La. Sup.) 150 So. 847, this day decided.

For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal herein is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 848, 178 La. 113, 1933 La. LEXIS 1820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-orleans-v-mitchell-la-1933.