
    No. 6274.
    City of New Orleans vs. George L. Bright.
    The clofendant-admits that the extended boundary oi New Orleans, under the act of 1R74, No. 71, embraces his property, but insists that that portion of the law is unconstitutional, because it is not covered by or embraced in the title of the act. The court can not concur in this view.
    The title of the act enumerates other objects besides the annexation of the city of Carrollton to the city of Now Orleans, and among them is the creation of the " Seventh District of the city of New Orleans and a municipal court and a sanitary district,” etc. The boundary of this Seventh District includes the defendant’s property.
    APPEAL from the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans. 1Taw-kins, J.
    
      Samuel P. Blanc, Assistant City Attorney, for plaintiff and appellant.
    
      George L. Bright, defendant and appellee, in propria persona.
    
   Moegan, J.

The defendant claims that a portion of the property upon which the city tax is levied, which is known as the “ Oakland Course ’* does not lie within the limits of the city of New Orleans. It is this item alone which he complains of. The plaintiff relies upon act No. 71 of the Legislature of 1874 to show that it does.

The defendant says that this law is unconstitutional, the object not being expressed in its title. But we have determined this adversely to his views in the cases of the State vs. Daniel, and in the succession of Téaulet, recently decided. Opinion Book 45, p. 50.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court be amended, and that there be judgment for the city as prayed for, for $1547, and that as thus amended it be affirmed, defendant to pay the costs in both courts.

On Reheabing.

Ltjdeling, C. J.

On a re-examination of this case we are not inclined to change our former decree. The defendant admits that the extended boundary of New Orleans, under the act of 1874, No. 71, embraces his property, but he insists that that portion of the law is unconstitutional, because it is not covered by or embraced in the title of the act. To this we can not assent. The title of the act enumerates other objects besides the annexation of the city of Carrollton to the city of New Orleans, and among them is the creation of “ the Seventh District of the. city of New Orleans and a municipal court and a sanitary district,” etc. The boundary of this Seventh District includes the defendant’s property. Besides, the boundary or limits of Carrollton seem to have been extended by act No. 2 of 1872 (p. 29) so as to include defendant’s property.

It is therefore ordered that the decree heretofore rendered remain undisturbed.  