
    No. 5736.
    State of Louisiana ex rel. Mississippi and Mexican Gulp Ship Canal Company v. The Administrators of the City of New Orleans.
    The intervenor in this case, J. Q. A. Fellows, has not given bond for appeal. It is not suffioientfor him to have joined the city in taking an appeal, and that the city has given bond for costs, the only bond that could bo required. The intervenor is aseparate, independent party in the litigation. The obligation of the city to pay costs does not cover the costs of intervention.
    This suit is for the same purpose as that stated in hTo. 5735, previously reported. As pledgers, the relators have sufficient interest to demand that respondents shall peril nn the duties required of them by their pledgee.
    APPEAL from the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans. HawJtins, J.
    
      Charles 8. JRiee, for relator and appellee. B. F. Jonas, attorney, Samuel P. Blano, assistant city attorney, for respondents appellants. •
   On Motion to Dismiss.

Taliaferro, J.

There is a motion to dismiss the appeal taken in this case by J. Q. A. Fellows, intervenor, on the ground that he has not given bond for an appeal. The record shows that the intervenor has failed to give appeal bond. He contends, however, that he joined the city in taking an appeal, and that the city has given bond for costs, the only bond that could be required in the case.

The intervenor is a separate independent party in the litigation. The obligation of the city to pay costs does not cover the costs incurred by the intervention. We think the intervenor should have given bond.

The motion to dismiss is sustained, and it is ordered that the appeal, so far as it relates to the intervenor, be dismissed.

On the Meeits.

Wtlt, J.

This case presents the same question as presented in the case just decided, namely, whether the respondents can be compelled by mandamus to collect the judgments for drainage assessments to provide funds to pay the warrants issued by the Administrator of Accounts under act 30 of the acts of 1871.

This proceeding is for (he same purpose as that stated in the case just decided. The cases were tried together and the same decree entered in each.

We regard the assignment to Yan Norden by the relators herein merely as a pledge of their franchises. re-

As pledgee, Yan Norden had sufficient interest to compel the respondents to perform the duty imposed on them by act 30 of the acts of 187L

As pledgers, the relators have sufficient interest to demand that the respondents shall perform the duty required of them by Yan Norden.

Judgment affirmed.  