Tissot v. Dubuclet
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Third District Court for the parish of Orleans. Monroe, J. First — A criminal conviction of the State Treasurer, under Sec. 3784 Revised Statutes of 1870, is not an essential pre-requisite to a suit for the recovery of the fourfold penalty therein provided in favor of the holder of warrants, payment of which has been illegally refused.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Third District Court for the parish of Orleans. Monroe, J. First — A criminal conviction of the State Treasurer, under Sec. 3784 Revised Statutes of 1870, is not an essential pre-requisite to a suit for the recovery of the fourfold penalty therein provided in favor of the holder of warrants, payment of which has been illegally refused. The criminal prosecution and civil suit are independent of each other. 12 Wheaton, pp. 14 and 15. The construction of a penal statute should not be so strict as to defeat tbe plain intent of the Legislature. Sedgwick on the Construction of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
The plaintiff, alleging himself to be the holder of certain warrants amounting to $2500, and that the defendant, A. Dubuclet, then State Treasurer, had refused to pay these warrants when presented for payment, although there was money in the treasury out of which they should have been paid, brings this suit against the said Dubuclet and the sureties on his official bond, for $10,000, fourfold the amount of said warrants.
*704The action is evidently brought under section 3784 of the Revised Statutes, which provides:
“If the treasurer shall wilfully…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nason v. StaplesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1861