
    (106 So. 312)
    No. 27454.
    MOTOR LEAGUE OF LOUISIANA et al. v. WATSON et al. In re MOTOR LEAGUE OF LOUISIANA et al.
    (Nov. 2, 1925.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Mandamus <&wkey;29—Refusal to sign ex parte order permitting withdrawal of papers filed held not arbitrary or harmful entitling relators to mandamus.
    District judge’s refusal to sign ex parte order, permitting relators to withdraw certain powers of attorney filed in a certain action in which relators were plaintiffs coupled with judged proposal to give notice to defendants and let them be heard, held not arbitrary or harmful, entitling relators to mandamus.
    Action by thq Motor League of Louisiana and others against Eli T. Watson and others. An ex parte order requested by plaintiffs was refused, and they apply for mandamus. Relief prayed for denied, with right to renew application to district judge.
    P. M. Miler, M. H. Manion, Henry W. Robinson, St. Clair Adams, Guión & Upton, and P. E. Edrington, Jr., all of New Orleans, for relators.
    Sanders, Baldwin, Viosca & Haspel, of New Orleans, for respondents.
   O’NIELL, C. J.

The relators pray for a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to sign an ex parte order permitting them to withdraw certain powers of attorney that were filed in a lawsuit in which these relators were plaintiffs. When their attorneys presented the order to the judge and requested him to sign it, he declined to grant an ex parte order, but offered to issue a rule upon the defendants in the case, to show cause why the powers of attorney should not be withdrawn from the files. Relators’ attorneys, being not satisfied with the judge’s offer, immediately gave notice that they would apply for a writ of mandamus.

The relators were too hasty in declining the judge’s offer of a rule nisi, and in coming to us for relief. It is likely that the judge would have made the rule absolute, granting to relators the relief they sought. If he had declined to do so, there would have been ample time to, complain to us.

There was nothing arbitrary or harmful in the judge’s proposal to give notice to the defendants in the case and let them be heard.

The relief prayed for is denied at relators’ cost, reserving their right to renew their application to the district judge.-  