Skip to main content
· 11/16/1908

Bruning v. City of New Orleans

Citations

  • 122 La. 316
  • 47 So. 624
  • 1908 La. LEXIS 457

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations (§ 374*) — Public IMPROVEMENTS — CONTRACTS — LIABILITY OP Municipality.</p> <p>The city of New Orleans entered into a contract with plaintiff (under the thirty-seventh section of the city charter, as amended by Act No. 119, p. 217, of 1886, and Act No. 142, p. 179, of 1894) for the paving of the sidewalks on both sides of David street and of Bienville street. The work was performed by the contractor according to contract. The city in part payment of the work transferred to the contractors “paving certificates,” representing the proportion of the cost due by proprietors of the lots fronting on the streets, and which were supposed to be secured by privilege on those properties subrogating the contractor to the rights of the city. In his attempt to avail himself of these certificates the contractor was successfully resisted by the owners of certain properties on the ground that they had not been given a special notice by the city officials which, under an ordinance of the city council entitled them to have given, in order to render their properties liable for contribution for any part of the work.</p> <p>Being cast in those actions, the contractor has brought suit against the city to recover from it the amount called for by the certificates (with interest and costs), which he had been unable to collect for the reasons stated. The city resists the demand on the ground that the contractor had expressly agreed that the city of New Orleans should not be held liable for any bills due by the abutting owners, should same not be paid. The -district court rendered judgment against the contractor, and he has appealed.</p> <p>Appellant urges that the contract between himself and the city was a valid contract under the city charter, and that that validity was not affected by the neglect of the city officials to give the property owners a notice as directed by a city ordinance, and which failure had enabled them to escape from contribution towards the-cost

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that personal injury claims alleging negligence are not “related to” broker services
  • finding no FAAAA preemption because negligent hiring claims are not sufficiently related to the services of a broker

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nicholls

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.