Thompson v. Police Jury of Catahoula Parish

160 So. 414, 181 La. 789, 1935 La. LEXIS 1535
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedMarch 4, 1935
DocketNo. 30707.
StatusPublished

This text of 160 So. 414 (Thompson v. Police Jury of Catahoula Parish) 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
Thompson v. Police Jury of Catahoula Parish, 160 So. 414, 181 La. 789, 1935 La. LEXIS 1535 (La. 1935).

Opinion

BRUNOT, Justice.

This suit was instituted by B. F. Thompson, but J. B. Smith, who is the only party now having an interest in the suit, has been substituted for Thompson, as the relator.

The prayer of the petition is for a writ of mandamus directed to the police jury of Catahoula parish and to each member thereof, commanding them, and each of them to budget, collect, and pay over to relator $22,-793.96, with 5 per cent, per annum interest *792 thereon from January 7, 1929, and 10 per cent, on the sum of said principal and interest as attorney’s fee.

The sum claimed is the past-due and unpaid balance of a compromise judgment rendered in favor of J. B. Smith and against the parish of Catahoula, in the suit No. 4396, J. B. Smith v. Police Jury of Catahoula Parish, on the docket of the Seventh judicial district court of this state.

This judgment was read and signed on September 20, 1926. There was no appeal from the judgment. The police jury issued six certificates covering the full amount of the judgment. It paid the first two certificates on their maturity dates, and made a substantial payment on the third certificate at its maturity date, but failing to make any further payment to the relator, the holder and owner of the unpaid certificates, this suit was filed.

The defense, as we understand it, is: First, that the judgment the relator is seeking to enforce is not an indebtedness of Catahoula parish, but of road districts 1, 2, and 3 of said parish. Second, that the act of the president and secretary of the police jury, in confessing judgment in the suit mentioned supra, was unauthorized, ultra vires, and not binding on the parish.

When the case was tried, the judge, without assigning reasons therefor, dismissed the suit at relator’s cost, and this appeal is from that judgment.

It appears that two suits between the parties to this suit were pending in the Seventh judicial district court. In one of the suits the relator was the plaintiff, and in the other the police jury was the plaintiff. The differences between the litigants were settled by a compromise agreement which is incorporated in and made the judgment of the court, which the relator, in this suit, is seeking to enforce. We think it is advisable to quote the resolution of the police jury and the compromise agreement and judgment of the court iii full:

“Resolution.
“Whereas, a controversy exists between Smith Brothers, a commercial partnership composed of J. B. Smith and W. H. Smith, Jr., and the Parish of Catahoula, relating to a fund in escrow in the Alexandria Bank & Trust Company, of Alexandria, Louisiana, claimed by both parties, and made the subject of a certain suit now pending in the Seventh District Court, said suit being numbered #4352 and entitled ‘Police Jury of Catahoula Parish v. J. B. Smith et ais.’ and
“Whereas, a certain suit being numbered 4396 entitled ‘James B. Smith v. Police Jury of Catahoula Parish et als.’ is now pending in the Seventh Judicial District Court, and
“Whereas, the Parish of Catahoula and said Smith Brothers did enter into several contracts covering the construction of certain public roads in Catahoula Parish, reference being made to said contract now on file with the Police Jury, and there has arisen a controversy between said parties as to certain claims for sums due as made by said Smith Brothers under said contracts, and
“Whereas, the Police Jury of Catahoula Parish, Louisiana, and J. B. Smith, as the successor of Smith Brothers, desire to settle and adjust said suits above referred to and *794 to settle and adjust all claims made by the said Smith Brothers against the said parish, and
“Whereas, a proposition of compromise has been made by the said Smith providing for a complete settlement of said suits and of said claims, therefore,
“Be it resolved, by the Police Jury of Catahoula Parish, in lawful session convened, that the President and Secretary of the Police Jury of Catahoula Parish are hereby directed and empowered for and on behalf of this body to make, sign, execute and deliver an act of compromise with the said Smith, or any authorized agent appointed by him, which act of compromise shall provide as follows:
“First: That said Smith shall renounce all claims to the fund in escrow in the Alexandria Bank & Trust Company, and shall upon receipt of the certificates of indebtedness hereinafter provided for, abandon all other claims against the Parish of Catahoula, and shall dismiss and abandon that certain suit numbered 4396, and entitled ‘Smith v. Police Jury of Catahoula Parish et als.’
“Second: The Parish of Catahoula shall abandon all claims to the interest coupons delivered to the Alexandria Bank & Trust Company, in connection with the escrow agreement hereinabove referred to.
“Third: The Parish of Catahoula shall admit and provide for the. payment of an indebtedness due the said J. B. Smith under the contracts above referred to amounting to the sum of Thirty'Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty Nine and 96/100 ($34,969.96) Dollars.
“Fourth: The Parish of Catahoula, through its Police Jury, and represented by its President and Secretary, shall make, sign, execute and deliver to J. B. Smith, or any authorized agent, certificates of indebtedness of the said Parish of Catahoula, aggregating the sum of Thirty Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixty Nine and 96/100 ($34,969.96) Dollars, said certificates to be in substantially the following form, to wit:
“No.- $-
“On the-day of -, 19 — , after date, for value received, the Parish of Catahoula, promises to pay to J. B. Smith, or assigns, at the Harrisonburg, State Bank, at Harrisonburg, Louisiana, the sum of- (-) Dollars, with five per cent, interest from date until paid, interest payable semiannually.
“It is agreed that if this certificate is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection after maturity, then the maker shall pay ten per cent of the aggregate amount thereof as attorney’s fees.
“This certificate is one of a series of six certificates, aggregating $34,969.96, issued by the Police Jury of Catahoula Parish, pursuant to a resolution adopted September 15th, 1926, said certificates to be numbered from one to six, inclusive.
“Said certificates shall be dated September 15th, 1925, and shall be in the following amounts and maturities, to-wit:
“#1. $5828.32 Due March 15, 1927.
“#2. $5828.32 Due September 15, 1927.
“#3. $5828.32 Due March 15, 1928.
“#4. $5828.32 Due September 15, 1928.
*796 “#5. $5828.32 Due March 15, 1929.
“#6. $5828.32 Due September 15, 1929.

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

Related

Parker v. Scogin
11 La. Ann. 629 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1856)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 So. 414, 181 La. 789, 1935 La. LEXIS 1535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-police-jury-of-catahoula-parish-la-1935.