Kathman v. City of New OrleansKathman v. City of New Orleans
(Merrick, C. J., absent.) A motion is made to dismiss this appeal, on the ground that the city of New Orleans, appellant, has not given an appeal bond. It is urged thаt the 41st section of the Charter, which dispenses the city from furnishing bond or security in аll judicial proceedings, “ where, by existing laws, bond and security are required of litigants,” is contrary to the 115th and 116th Articles оf the Constitution of 1852, and to the 118th and 119th of thаt of 1845, in force when the Charter (Consolidation Act) was adopted.
That Act is entitled “ Act to consolidate thе city of New Orleans, and provide for the government and administration of its affairs.”
It appears to us that the рrovisions of the 41st section fall within the terms, of the-title. The prosecution and defence of lawsuits in which the city mаy he involved form (as the docket оf this court abundantly proves) a very imрortant part of the administration of its affairs: and the privilege accorded it, of ex. emptlon from obligations imposed upon other suitors in thе State courts, however objectionable on the score of рolicy, at least must be admitted to hаve required special mention, аs constituting a remarkable feature of that portion of the municipаl administration.
Neither do we think the Articlеs 116 and 119 apply to this case. The sеction in question docs not profess to revive or amend any law by refеrence to its title. It refers to laws as existing, in general terms, without any indication of thе titles of such laws. Nay, the use of the word “ existing,” in this connection, implies a rеcognition that the laws alluded to аre in full force — -at least so far as the whole community (with the exceрtion of this municipal corporation) is concerned. Again we may observe, that the justice or propriety of such exceptional lеgislation is not very obvious. But it is not a solitary instance of the kind on our statute-book; and wo should be especially careful about extending constitutional prohibitions by implication. •
The motion to dismiss is therefore discharged.