
    No. 10,033.
    The State ex rel. Police Jury, Parish of Plaquemines vs. A. E. Livaudais, Judge, et al.
    A District Court is incompetent lo enforce the execution of a judgment rendered by a Justice of the Peace, the more so where the existence and validity thereof are put at issue.
    Objections to the jurisdiction of that court, in such a case, ought not to have been overruled.
    A prohibition lies to such court to prevent the execution of the judgment rendered by it to enforce the judgment thus assailed.
    APPLICATION for Prohibition and Certiorari.
    
      James Wilkinson, District Attorney, for the Relator:
    Justices of the Peace have a right to grant new trials within three days after service on defendant of a valid notice of judgment, where the judgment was rendered out of his presence. Art. 1152/ Code of Practice; “Louisiana Magistrate,” p. 53; Knoblocb’s Civil and Grim. Justice, p. 74; Act 45, 1880, sec. 7; Hule XI, City Courts, New Orleans; Slate ex rel. Broussard vs. Koenig, 39 Ann. C. P., 1085, 1131.
    An attorney-at-law requires a special power to accept service of notice of judgment; 32 Ann. 803, and other authorities there cited.
    An agreement to accept service of notice of judgment presupposes a valid notice of judgment shall be served, La. Magistrate, p. 39.
    No valid notice was served in this cause.
    The motion for a new trial was in time, irrespective of the time when the judgment was signed; 5 N. S. 224; 4 Ann. 561; 6 Ann 251; 20 Ann. 168; 23 Ann., 110.
    Where a court has jurisdiction of tliesubject matter and theparfcies are before it, its orders and decrees, though perhaps voidable, are not void; IToldane vs. Sumner, 15 Wallace, 60 L; Baylii vs. Bay hi, 35 Aun. 529.
    The District Court has no supervisory power over Justice of the Peace Courts; State vs. Judge Nineteenth Judicial District; 39 Ann. and cases there cited ; Arts. 617, 618 and 629 of the Code of Practice.
    In mandamus proceedings the officer whose duty it is to perform the act must be cited ; Dillon onMun, Corporation “Mandamus; C. P. Art. 834 ; 29 Ann. 262; C. P. Art. 844.
    The President of the Police Jury has no greater power than any other member to provide for the payment of a judgment; 38 Ann, 630.
    The facts at bar entitle us to tbe writs of prohibition and certiorari.
    
    
      P. Leonard aná Sambola and Lucros :
    
    MALITIIS HOH JEST IHDTJXGOEHDTJM.
    1. The writ of certiorart is allowa.le only in case of a relator complaining of tbe want either of citation or of the jurisdiction of an inferior judge, or of proceedings absolutely void or not cured by the action of the party complaining ; O. P. 845, 846, 855, 856, 857, 864, S65.
    2. Country district courts have jurisdiction of all cases involving more than §50 in value or amount, as well as of cases brought by mandamus to enforce tbe payment of a judgment rendered by a justice’s court cgainst a parish or police jury. Const. 1879, Art. 109; C. P. 81, 829,r836, 844; 1 JR. 496; 13 Ann. 291; 4 Ann. 84*30 Ann. 65; 1 Ann. 438; Boone, § 313, 168 . 2 Billon, § 850; High, § 365.
    3. In a suit brought against a parish or police jury eo nomine, citation issued and served on the president of the police jnry legally brings tbe police jury into court, without citing the individual members thereof; C. P. 112, 119, 198, 206, 829, 844; 35 Ann. 70; High, §§ 337, 442, 443, 444; 2 Dillon, § 700, etc.: Boone, §§ 75,160 ; 21 Ann. 439; 23 Ann. 803; 27 Ann. 542,
    4. An exception of any kind, other than one founded on the absolute incompetency of the court ratione materice, is legally waived by an answer to the merits, without a previous decision of the exception. C. P. 94, 353, 334, 335, 344; 23 Ann. 255; 26 Ann. 312; 18 Ann. 66; 14 Ann. 798; 4L. 482; 12 Ann. 198; 10 Ann. 20; 17 L. 499; 4 Ann. 350: 1 H. S. 201, 704; 11 B. 80, 430; 2 L. 226 ; 18 Ann. 340 ; 2 L. 226 * 30 Ann. 705.
    5. On a writ of certiorari the court is not permitted by law to pass upon the intrinsic correctness of the judgment or proceeding complained of. 33 Ann. 16 ; 32 Ann. 1223 ; 38 Ann. 378, 922; 39 Ann. 621.
    6. An attorney of record may legally accept service of a notice of a judgment, or agree on behalf of his client to a certain mode of taking or trying suspensively an appeal, and by so doing be waives none of bis client’s rights. 1 Ann. 398; 32 Ann. 8Ó3; 12 L. 603; C. P. 197,206,1090, 1129, 1131,1133,1139; 2 Arn. 917; 3 Ann. 543.
    7. A country justice of the peace in this State is without jurisdictional power to grant a new trial by reason of an error of fact or of law committed in his former final judgment. Bev. Stat., §§ 2047, 2052; C. P. 124, 557 to563, 912, 913, 914, 1043, 1074, 1090, 1129, 1131,1132; 16 Merlin Bep., verbo judgment, § 3, Ho. 4; 29 Merlin, verbis requéte civile, § 3, Ho. 11; verbis révision de procbs, § 1, Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7; Carré, Ho. 604 and notes; 4 Pavard, Bep., verbis revision de procés, Hos. 1, 2; Curia pbilipica, part 1, § 18, Hos. 17 and 18 ; part 5, § 4, Ho, 1; 7 Pobrero, p. 184, appendix, chap. 2, § 1; 1 Solon. §§ 165, 168, 170, 2 L. 139 ; 2 Ann. 493; 2 B. 512.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

This is an application for a prohibition and certiorari. The complaint is: That tbe district judge lias undertaken, over tbe objection made to bis jurisdiction, to issue a mandamus to tbe police jury to compel them to make provision for tbe payment of a judgment for $75, rendered by tbe third justice of tbe peace in tbe parish.

Tbe grounds of tbe complaint are: That tbe district court is incompetent to enforce a judgment of a justice of tbe peace, and that, in tbe case in which tbe judgment was rendered, the justice of the peace bad granted a new trial, thus leaving' matters as though no judgment bad been rendered.

The objection to the jurisdiction of the district couriin the premises was overruled and the court reudered judgment simultaneously on the merits.

The district judge returns, maintaining his jurisdiction in the premises.

It is unnecessary to inquire whether the judgmont alleged to have been rendered by the justice and sought to be enforced before the district court is or not in existence and valid.

It suffices to say, even if it be a valid judgment, that it does not appertain to the district court to see to its execution.

The Code of Practice, Article 629, provides : It is for the Court, whether appellate or inferior, which has rendered the judgment, to take cognizance of the manner of its execution, when the proper manner of executing it is to be determined.”

An anterior article, 617, declares that the execution of judgments belongs to the courts by which the causes have been tried, and the jurisprudence on the subject is that it belongs to the court which has reudered the judgment to regulate the mode of its execution, aud that the Supreme Court will not interfere except in clear cases of injustice or oppression. Compton vs. Aireal, 9 Ann. 496; Donnell vs. Parrott, 13 Ann. 253; 7 N. S. 658; 8 M. 63.

It appears from the pleadings here that the existence and validity of the judgment sought to be enforced are°denied. This is an issue which the district court was incompetent to deteimine, and which belongs exclusively to the justice’s court, by which it is claimed to have been rendered.

It is clear that the objection to the jurisdiction of the district court ought not to have been overruled, and that the district court cannot proceed to execute the judgment rendered, making the mandamus peremptory on the police jury.

It is therefore ordered and decreed that the judgment rendered by the district court be declared invalid and that the prohibition asked be made peremptory.  