No. 12,129 Precedential Processed

Osthoff v. Flotte

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed June 15, 1896 · 20 So. 282

Cited by

State v. Elias 87 So. 2d 521 La. 1956
State Ex Rel. Marcade v. City of New Orleans 44 So. 2d 305 La. 1949
State v. Martin 189 So. 109 La. 1939
American Nat. Bank v. Bauman 137 So. 54 La. 1931
American Nat. Bank v. Bauman 137 So. 54 La. 1931
State ex rel. Texada v. Capdevielle 72 So. 946 La. 1916
Paepcke Leicht Lumber Co. v. Vantrompt 69 So. 159 La. 1915
Laporte v. Libby 38 So. 457 La. 1905

Opinion text

The opinion of the court was delivered by Miller, J. This is an application for a mandamus to compel the clerk of the Civil District Oourt to issue, without charge, a copy of the naturalization papers of the relator, and the appeal is by the clerk, from a judgment making peremptory the mandamus. The relator’s reliance is on the 32d section of Act No. 123, p. 164, of 1880, which required the clerk to issue the copy on the application of the party, and without charge. The clerk bases his refusal on the subsequent Act No. 136 of 1880 authorizing the clerk to charge for copies generally. The title of the Act No. 123 of 1880 is to provide a system of registration. It is minute in its provisions to- secure a correct registration, refers to certificates of naturalization to be produced as evidence of the right to register, and to this end requires copies to be furnished by the clerk when the originals are lost, and that no charge shall be made. It is contended the title to this act does not cover-the subject of the 32d section in reference to the furnishing of these copies. We think the method of registry, that the purpose of the act was to direct, would have been imperfect without providing for-obtaining the naturalization certificates, the evidences of citizenship, and the direction for copies without cost was within the scope of the title as an incident of the subject of the act. Const., Art. 29; Municipality No. 3 vs. Michoud, 6 An. 305; Succession of Lanzetti, 9 Án. 329; Succession of Aaron, 11 An. 671. The other contention of the defendant is that the 32d section of Act No. 123 of 1880 is repealed by the Act No. 136 of 1880, the fee bill. The charge for copies generally, authorized by that act, is, in our view, not inconsistent with the special legislation in the previous ' act. A. general rule prescribed by a later statute is not accepted as manifesting any purpose to disturb the previously *1096 enacted special rule. In our view Sec. 32 of the Act 123 of 1880 is still in force, and hence the relator is entitled to the copy without charge. Civil Code, Art. 23; Succession of Fletcher, 12 An. 498; State vs. Slave Kitty, 12 An. 805; State vs. Labatut, 39 An. 513. The judgment of the District Courtis therefore affirmed with costs.