State ex rel. Centani v. Marrero

13 Tiess. 185
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 9, 1915
DocketNo. 6512
StatusPublished

This text of 13 Tiess. 185 (State ex rel. Centani v. Marrero) 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
State ex rel. Centani v. Marrero, 13 Tiess. 185 (La. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinions

Plis Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a suit by which relator, who sets up his appointment by the Governor as police juror of Ward 9 of-the Parish of Jefferson, seeks by a writ of mandamus to compel the District Attorney to institute an intrusion into •office proceeding under Act 158 of 1868 against one St. Martin, .on the ground that the latter is unlawfully holding, exercising and usurping said office.

The trial Court, after hearing, made peremptory the alternative writ of mandamus that had been issued, and the District Attorney now appeals.

We .are of opinion that the judgment is erroneous and should be set aside for the reason that the case presented is not .one wherein relief by mandamus should be granted.

Mandamus will not lie where there exists .another adequate remedy, and in the present instance this is afforded by the writ of quo warranto under 'C. P., 868, which provides that the writ of quo warranto is intended for tlie settlement of disputes between parties with regard to offices in corporations, such as the office of mayor of a city, and such like.

.That police juries or parishes are political corporations has been repeatedly declared in our State constitutions [187]*187¡and so frequently and uniformly recognized in our jurisprudence as to render unnecessary the citation of decisions.

Opinion and decree, November 9th, 1915. Rehearing granted, November 24th, 1915. Syllabus. On Rehearing. A parish is á political corporation created for the purpose of administering a portion of the State and to which part of • the powers of government is delegated to that effect, and a police juror is an officer of that corporation.

Constitution of 1879, Art. 249; Constitution of 1898, Art. 277; Constitution of 1913; Art. 277; R. C. C., 429.

As the use of the phrase “such like” indicates, the province of the writ'of quo warranto is not confined to contests over offices in incorporated cities alone, but extenas to the determination of the right to office in other political corporations.

Saunders vs. Kohnke, 109 La., 838,

As a police juror is clearly an officer of a political corporation and as the subject-matter here is a contest with respect to that office, relator is afforded through the writ .of quo warranto a remedy more immediate and direct and one as adequate and as speedy as he would secure through the writ which he demands.

It is accordingly ordered that the judgment be annulled and reversed and that the suit of relator be dismissed at his costs in both Courts.

Reversed.

The writ quo warranto provided by the Code of Practice is the proper remedy to settle all disputes relating to officers In political corporations. The Intrusion into Office Act has not repealed the quo warranio provisions of the Codé of Practice in so far as they apply to officers in political corporations. Repeals by implication are not favored by law.

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

Related

M'culloch v. State of Maryland
17 U.S. 316 (Supreme Court, 1819)
Sheboygan Co. v. Parker
70 U.S. 93 (Supreme Court, 1866)
Board of Comm'rs of Tippecanoe Cty. v. Lucas
93 U.S. 108 (Supreme Court, 1876)
Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith
100 U.S. 514 (Supreme Court, 1880)
Rolfe v. Boston & Maine Railroad
45 A. 251 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1898)
Yorks's Appeal
1 A. 162 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1885)
Elkin v. Timlin
25 A. 139 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1892)
Estate of Moneypenny
37 A. 589 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
Milliken v. Brown
1 Rawle 391 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1829)
Case of the Road in the Borough of Easton
3 Rawle 195 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1831)
Findlay v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance
52 A. 429 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1902)
State ex rel. Sorrel v. Foster
106 La. 425 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1901)
State ex rel. Saunders v. Kohnke
33 So. 793 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1903)
State v. Hammond Packing Co.
34 So. 368 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1903)
State ex rel. Alba v. Sommerville
36 So. 104 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1903)
State ex rel. Smith v. Theus
38 So. 870 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1905)
State ex rel. Duffy v. Goff
65 So. 481 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1913)
McGuire ex rel. Police Jury v. Bry
3 Rob. 196 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1842)
Glenn v. Reid
24 A. 155 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Tiess. 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-centani-v-marrero-lactapp-1915.