Loze v. Mayor

2 La. 427
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMay 15, 1831
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 La. 427 (Loze v. Mayor) 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
Loze v. Mayor, 2 La. 427 (La. 1831).

Opinion

Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, farmer of the collection of certain taxes imposed by ordinances of the city council, was cast in several actions for the recovery of these taxes, on the pleas of the defendants that they could not be bound to pay taxes imposed by ordinances of the city council promulgated in the French language only; and those under which he claimed not having been promulgated in any other manner, he appealed to the City and Parish Court, in which he was assisted by the counsel of the city, and the judgments were confirmed.

He brought the present suit for relief, and is appellant of the judgment of the District Court, which decides that such ordinances are binding, though they he not promulgated in the language in which the constitution of the United States is written.

It does not appear to us the District Court erred. The constitution of this state has, indeed, prescribed the use of the national language in the promulgation and preservation of all laws that may be passed by the legislature, the public records of the state, the legislative and judicial written proceedings of the same. — Sect. 5.

the city council is it be* promulgated m the French lan-

We are of opinion that this constitutional provision cannot, without too forced a construction, be extended to the by-laws and ordinances of corporations. Whatever force and effect such by-laws and ordinances may have, they are not laws passed by the legislature of the state. In the case of the Police Jury vs M’Donough, we held that the proceed-mgs of police juries did not come within the provisions of pje constitution; and the present case cannot be distinguished from that.

The defendants were not parties to the suit in which the present and then plaintiff failed, from the circumstance of his not being entitled to an appeal from the Parish Court. The circumstance of the city having afforded him the aid of their counsel, does not render the decision res judicata against it.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed with costs.

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

Related

Conners v. City of Lowell
95 N.E. 412 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
State ex rel. Lamothe v. Rightor
46 La. Ann. 1407 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1894)
First Municipality v. Cutting
4 La. Ann. 335 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1849)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 La. 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loze-v-mayor-la-1831.