State ex rel. Tisdale v. Mayor of New Orleans

Citations

• 52 La. Ann. 1639

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. The right of appointment of clerks by the recorders of New Orleans in August, 1809, has to be tested by neither Act No. 154, nor 174 of 1894. Those acts were superceded by later acts. (Peters vs. Bell, 51st Ann., 1625).</p> <p>2. Where two parties join in a petition for a mandamus to tile Finance Committee of the City Council to certify to the City Comptroller their claims for salaries as clerlis in the recorder’s court, and to the Comptroller to issue warrants for the same to the City Treasurer, the application must be refused when, assuming that the writ should properly issue as to one of the relators, the evidence does not disclose which of the two relators is the one entitled to it.</p> <p>3. The clause in the schedule of the charter of New Orleans, of 1896, continuing in office the various municipal officers and eouneilmen elected at the general election in April, 1886, until the expiration of the term for which they were elected, and their successors were duly qualified, does not refer to the clerks in the recorder’s courts; they were not elected in April, 1896, but were appointed by the recorders, subject to removal at any time by them.</p>