Hanson v. City Council
Supreme Court of Louisiana
ON AN APPLICATION POR A RE-HEAUINGr. solicited a re-hearing- in this case. They insisted on it because the court had decided the whole case, when it was only tried in part in the court below; and the question decided by that court could alone be appealed from. The question of damages was by consent of parties reserved until the right of the defendants to make the levee should be first decided.
Read the full summary
ON AN APPLICATION POR A RE-HEAUINGr. solicited a re-hearing- in this case. They insisted on it because the court had decided the whole case, when it was only tried in part in the court below; and the question decided by that court could alone be appealed from. The question of damages was by consent of parties reserved until the right of the defendants to make the levee should be first decided. It is true the court rejects the claim for damages, but in doing so, it assumed original jurisdiction, and acted on a matter not before it. We certainly have a right to be heard upon this subject before…
1Opinion of the CourtGarland, J.
The court refuse to grant a re-hearing upon all the points set forth in the petition of the plaintiffs except one.
When the case was before us, it was elaborately argued as to the power to demolish the buildings on the levee and bank of the river, and as to the question whether it could be done without paying damages. Various articles of the Code Were referred to, and a long argument followed to prove the plaintiffs were entitled to damages in consequence of the ordinance of June 5th, 1833, entitled “ an ordinance relative to the public levee.” It was never once intimated that the whole case…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Ward v. Board of Levee Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1922