CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
v.
NEW ORLEANS, MOBILE & TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY

U.S. | 1882-11-20
108 U.S. 15 Supreme Court of the United States (1882) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 27 L. Ed. 635 · 1 S. Ct. 187 · SCDB 1882-042 · 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1277
Cited by 3 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The City of New Orleans sought dismissal of an appeal through a compromise agreement signed by the city attorney, but the Board of Liquidation of the city's debt contested the dismissal, arguing that authority over the matter had been transferred to the board and that the compromise was therefore invalid. The Supreme Court continued the case to the next term, ordering dismissal of the appeal unless the board of liquidation promptly initiated proceedings in a competent court to set aside the compromise, thereby preserving the board's right to challenge the city council's authority while avoiding summary resolution of that disputed authority issue.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was continued at the request of the parties on the 10th of October. The appellee now presents a stipulation for the dismissal of the appeal, signed by the city attorney of New Orleans, pursuant to the terms of a compromise of the matter in dispute made with the city, council, and asks to have the appropriate order entered upon that stipulation.. The board of liquidation of the city debt of New Orleans comes to resist the entry of any such order, on the gronnd that, during the pend-ency of the appeal in this court, authority over the subject-matter of the controversy has been transferred-from the city council to that board, and that the compromise which has been effected is not binding. The board also asks permission to prosecute the appeal in the name of the city.

It is conceded that the city council made the compromise which is claimed, and-that the appellee is entitled to a dismissal of the appeal if the council had authority to do what, it has done and the compromise was fairly made. The dispute as to the authority of the council presents questions too important to be' settled summarily on these motions.

It is, therefore, ordered that the cause and pending motions be continued until the next term, and that the appeal be then dismissed, in accordance with the stipulation on file, unless the board of liquidation begin and prosecute, without unnecessary delay, in some court of competent jurisdiction, an appropriate proceeding to set aside the compromise which has been made with the city council.*

*

The board of liquidation’appeared, and on the 12th of November, 1883, after argument, the decree below was affirmed’. See 109 U. S. 221.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Murphy v. Ramsey & Others, 114 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1885)
    …w, were not tried by jury; and, therefore, are rightly brought here by appeal, according to the provision' of the aet of Congress of April Y, 1874, 18 Stat. 27. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235; Woolf v. Hamilton, 108 U. S. 15. The wrong complained of in each case by the respective plaintiffs is, “ that the defendants, and each of them, intending to wrongfully deprive the plaintiff of the elective franchise in said Territory, wilfully and maliciously, by the a¡cts and in…
  • United States v. Hailey, 118 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1886)
    …jury. Under such circumstances the only proper way of bringing it here for review would have been by writ of error. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; United States v. Railroad Co. 105 U. S. 263; Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235; Woolf v. Hamilton, 108 U. S. 15. In point of fact, however, there has been neither a writ of error, nor an appeal, nor a citation, nor an appearance by the defendant or respondent. It is clear, therefore, we have no jurisdiction, -and the case is Dismissed.…
  • Story v. Black, 119 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1886)
    …t of April-7; 1874, c.' 80, §-2, 18 Stat. 27,'the case should .have [*237] -been brought up by appeal’ and the writ of error' is therefore dismissed. Hecht v. Boughton, 105. U. S. 235; United States v. Railroad Co., 105 U. S. 263; Woolf v. Hamilton, 108 U. S. 15. The question is no longer opeh in this' court. ' The statutory rule is jurisdictional.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw