ma: VIGNIEBVD. OIT! or NEW ORLEANS. All
` Dm Vienmn v. Cru or Naw OuLn.u:s.*‘ `I ‘
Forlsom Bnorunas ·v. SAME."
(Ctrcutt Court, E. D. Louisiana. April, 1883.)
1. Muuromu.-Tax Powmn.
’ In the absence of any provisions of the statute which had entered into and
formed part of the contract, giving the right to impose a tax, bonds or other
obligations of a city, which belong to non-residents, cannot be taxed without
impairing the force of the obligation itself. _
2. JURISDICTION—JUDGMENT. ,
In a case pending here, this court has jurisdiction to protect the judgment,
which is the right of the plaintiff to recover a certain amount of money, from
all illegal procedures on the part of the debtor which assert a lien, and, if not »
arrested, might end in a complete divestiture of title.
On Demurrer. Bills for an injunction to restrain assessment and
collection of taxes upon judgments held and owned by non-residents.
Robert Mott, for complainants. _ ‘
Charles F. Back, City Atty., for defendant. y y
Bmmnes, J. In the first case, the judgment is for coupons of con-
solidated bonds issued by the city of New Orleans.
In the second case, the judgment is for damages occasioned by de-
struction of property by a mob. I " I
In Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 300; Milrray v. City of ·
Charleston, 96 U. S. 432; and Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672,
the supreme court of the United States have settled, among other
propositions of law, the two following, which apply to these cases: ,
,(1) That the exercise of the power of taxation by municipal corporations is , `
such an act of legislation that if it impairs the obligation of a contract it is ` .
within the prohibition of article 1, § 10, that no state shall pass a law im-
pairing the obligation of a contract. _
(2) That obligations to pay money on the part of states or cities, while
they may be property, are not so localized as to be property within a state or
city, when held by persons residing outside thereof.
It can hardly be doubted but what the statue of obligations, so far
as relates to exemption from taxation before suit, would continue
after suit; otherwise the debtor, by making default in the perform-
ance of his contract, would cast an additional burden upon the erect-
` itors, and cause a subtraction from the amount due. This was the
judgment by the legislature of Louisiana, for, in the charter of 1856,
*Reportcd by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the N cw Orleans bar.