Orleans Parish School Board v. City of New Orleans

56 So. 2d 280, 1952 La. App. LEXIS 439
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJanuary 7, 1952
Docket19875
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 56 So. 2d 280 (Orleans Parish School Board v. City of New Orleans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Orleans Parish School Board v. City of New Orleans, 56 So. 2d 280, 1952 La. App. LEXIS 439 (La. Ct. App. 1952).

Opinion

56 So.2d 280 (1952)

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 19875.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Orleans.

January 7, 1952.

*281 S. Roccaforte, New Orleans, for appellee.

Henry B. Curtis and Grady C. Durham, New Orleans, for appellant.

REGAN, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant, City of New Orleans, from a judgment ordering it to transfer to plaintiff, Orleans Parish School Board, one hundred and seventynine parcels of improved and unimproved property dedicated exclusively to school purposes, title to which is presently registered in the name of the City of New Orleans.

During the course of the regular session of the Louisiana Legislature of 1948, the members thereof passed a joint resolution designated as Act No. 535, which was subsequently ratified by the electorate and thence adopted as an amendment to Section 12 of Article IV of the Constitution of Louisiana relative to "the funds, credit, property or things of value of the State, or of any political corporation thereof". The amending provision subjected to this attack reads as follows:—"And provided, further, that the City of New Orleans, through its mayor, is hereby authorized and directed to transfer to the Orleans Parish School Board title to any and all school property, excepting all property of the Isaac Delgado Central Trades School, now or hereafter standing in the name of the city and dedicated exclusively to school purposes."

In pursuance of this amendment, plaintiff requested defendant to comply with the provisions thereof. Defendant declined to comply therewith until such time as the constitutionality of the amendment had been judicially determined. Hence plaintiff instituted this "friendly" action of mandamus to facilitate and expedite the execution of the transfer in conformity with the amendment to the constitution.

The original and supplemental petitions addressed to the Court, a qua, by the plaintiff herein, excluded all of the property of the Isaac Delgado Central Trades School and all property acquired by the City of New Orleans for school purposes pursuant to and by virtue of the existence of any trust. Defendant's original and supplemental answers admit all of the pertinent allegations of the plaintiff's original and supplemental petitions, but, in the final *282 analysis, simply deny that plaintiff is entitled to the remedy afforded by the writ of mandamus.

This matter was tried in its entirety on the pleadings, and the alternative writ of mandamus issued herein was made peremptory by the judge, a quo.

Title to the property, according to the Supreme Court, which transferred the case to us, is not in dispute, and, therefore, we are relegated to the only question which is now posed for our consideration by virtue of the foregoing pleadings, and that is whether plaintiff, the Orleans Parish School Board, has a right to compel the defendant, City of New Orleans, by mandamus proceedings, to transfer certain improved and unimproved properties, dedicated exclusively to school purposes to the plaintiff, in conformity with the provisions of Article IV, Section 12 of the Constitution of Louisiana as amended in 1948.

Defendant, City of New Orleans, opposes the transfer of the properties and maintains that (a) "mandamus is not a proper remedy where the act to be performed would be illegal and impossible of performance"; (b) "Act 535 of 1948, which purports to amend Section 12, Article IV of the Constitution of Louisiana covers a multiplicity of subjects and is unconstitutional"; (c) "The amendment deprives the City of New Orleans of property without due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution"; (d) "the amendment is not self-executing and requires additional legislation to make it operative."

In support of its contention designated hereinabove as (a) defendant argues that, in view of the fact that the amendment contained the phrase "authorized and directed" it was not a mandate issued to the Mayor to transfer the properties; that the Legislature was merely permitting the Mayor to transfer the school properties and was not making that conveyance mandatory. A fortiori, there exists by virtue of the words used in drafting the amendment, that element of discretion which would make mandamus an improper remedy.

We are of the opinion that the very terminology of the amendment "that the City of New Orleans, through its mayor, is hereby authorized and directed to transfer" is a mandate to the City of New Orleans to transfer to the Orleans Parish School Board, title to any and all school property "excepting all property of the Isaac Delgado Central Trades School, now or hereafter standing in the name of the city and dedicated exclusively to school purposes."

It is obvious that the Legislature did not intend to devolve upon the Mayor of the City of New Orleans a mere exercise of his discretion, but to impose a positive and absolute obligation.

It may not be amiss to note in this instance, because of the elaborate alternative contentions of respective counsel as to the ramifications of the phrase "authorized and directed" that words are intermediary between thought and things. We express ourselves not merely through words, which are only signs, but through what they signify—through things. Words per se are colorless and sometimes meaningless; but the thing that a word stands for has a meaning of its own (such as "directed") and usually a meaning charged with associations of ideas (such as "command") and most often this associative meaning is the primary and important one in its use.

Defendant, in support of its adverse contention designated hereinabove as (b) relies principally on the case of Graham v. Jones, 198 La. 507, 3 So.2d 761, as authority for the fact that Act 535 of 1948 subsequently adopted as an amendment to Section 12 of Article IV of the Constitution covered a multiplicity of subjects and in addition thereto that the submission of the amendment to the electorate embracing a plurality of objects violated Section 1 of Article XXI of the Constitution which provides that "when more than one amendment shall be submitted at the same election, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment separately."

In the Graham case [198 La. 507, 3 So.2d 777] the Court skillfully and microscopically analyzed the provisions of Act No. *283 384 of 1940, colloquially known as the "reorganization act", and stated "that the act embodies a plurality of objects and purposes." That "it affects six articles of the Constitution by repealing twenty sections, amending and rewriting eight sections, and adding seventeen new sections." That the text thereof embraced proposed amendments and not merely one proposed amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, that "the twenty articles which the legislative act proposes to repeal are referred to merely by numbers, no indication whatever being given as to what the articles cover. Reference to the Constitution itself discloses that three of these sections are in Article III governing the Legislative Department; five of the sections are in Article VI covering Administrative Offices and Boards; one of the sections is Article VI-A relating to Gasoline Taxes and the Distribution of the Proceeds; and ten sections are in and constitute the whole of Article XVI-A relating to the reparation claims connected with the Caernarvon Levee Break in St. Bernard Parish; four of the proposed new sections are in Article III, the Legislative Department; nine are in Article V, relating to the Executive Department; and four are in Article VI-A.

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

Related

City of Asheville v. State of N. Carolina
777 S.E.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2015)
West Cameron Port v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist.
38 So. 3d 577 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2010)
Opinion Number
Louisiana Attorney General Reports, 2006
Ebey v. Avoyelles Parish School Bd.
861 So. 2d 910 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
Baker School Bd. v. Ebr Parish School Bd.
754 So. 2d 291 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2000)
Housing Authority v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District
753 P.2d 1005 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1988)
Steele v. Ruiz
202 So. 2d 376 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1967)
Parish of Jefferson v. Doody
167 So. 2d 489 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Cobo v. O'BRYANT
116 So. 2d 233 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1959)
Orleans Parish School Board v. City of New Orleans
90 So. 2d 683 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1956)
Miller v. Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission
74 So. 2d 387 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 So. 2d 280, 1952 La. App. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orleans-parish-school-board-v-city-of-new-orleans-lactapp-1952.