# Tugwell v. Members of the Board of Highways

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · November 7, 1955 · 228 La. 662

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676751

## Case

- **Full name:** Andrew P. TUGWELL Et Al. v. MEMBERS OF the BOARD OF HIGHWAYS and the Department of Highways
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** November 7, 1955
- **Citations:** 228 La. 662; 83 So. 2d 893; 1955 La. LEXIS 1407
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McCALEB
- **Judges:** Fournet, Hamiter, Hawthorne, McCALEB, McCALEB'S, Ponder, Simon
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676751

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing LSA-R.S. 48:27 (West 1965)

## Opinion text

McCALEB, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
While I am in full accord with the majority ruling that the Department of Highways cannot fund the proceeds of the taxes collected pursuant to R.S. 47:711, subd. B into bonds without violating Section 22 of Article 6 of the Constitution, I cannot agree with the holding that the Department of Highways is such a corporate entity, distinct from the State of Louisiana, as to issue bonds which would not constitute an indebtedness of the State in violation of Section .2 of Article 4 of the Constitution.
As pointed out in my concurring opinion in Department of Highways v. Thomas, 200 La. 73 , 7 So.2d 619 , the Department of Highways, although given separate corporate existence by law, is nothing* more nor less than a State agency and all funds which come into its possession belong, in reality, to the people. Hence, any attempt of that body (which has plenary power to contract for the State) to issue bonds would be, in my opinion, the contracting of a debt or liability on behalf of the State and therefore unconstitutional.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676751. Public record. Not legal advice.