Home/Supreme Court of Louisiana/Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Town of Oakdale

Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Town of Oakdale

81 So. 367, 144 La. 849, 1918 La. LEXIS 1753
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedDecember 2, 1918
DocketNo. 22945
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 81 So. 367 (Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Town of Oakdale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Town of Oakdale, 81 So. 367, 144 La. 849, 1918 La. LEXIS 1753 (La. 1918).

Opinion

MONROE, C. J.

[1] The Bowman-I-Iicks Lumber Company, Forest Lumber Company, Sabine River Lumber & Logging Company, and Industrial Lumber Company brought this suit (into which Robert Thiele came as an intervener, joining the plaintiffs), praying that an ordinance of the town of Oak-dale, whereby it proposes to extend its corporate limits so as to include certain propertiés belonging to them, respectively, be decreed unreasonable, and hence unauthorized. The intervention was dismissed on exception, and the intervener 'has not appealed. The demands of the plaintiffs were rejected, and this appeal is prosecuted by them. The subjoined sketch,1 reduced (with no pretensions either to completeness of detail or technical accuracy) from two large blueprints which have been filed in evidence, will show the present and proposed boundaries of the town and the juxtaposition in which the inhabitants of plaintiffs’ properties and of the town site, respectively, live and do their work.

Plaintiffs’ grounds of attack upon the ordinance are summarized in the brief filed in their behalf, substantially as follows: That the town has reached its full development and requires no additional territory; that 50 per cent, of its lots are unoccupied; that each of the plaintiffs established its plant without reference to the town, and has its own waterworks, electric light, and police; that plaintiffs’ properties can derive no advantage from being included within the corporate limits, but will suffer the disadvantage of additional taxation, to which the owners object; that none of that property is for sale, nor will it be placed on the market, if so included; that law and order are better preserved thereon than within the town, but that the “Independent Quarters,” which belong to neither of the plaintiffs, should be taken into the town for the better preservation of law and order; that no question of health or sanitation is involved; that plaintiffs now contribute largely to the town treasury by the payment of taxes on property already within the corporate limits; that the sole purpose of the ordinance here complained of is to bring in the corporate limits of Oakdale the valuable mill plants and property of the plaintiffs, in order to increase the revenues of the town. Counsel for

[851]*851

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pyle v. City of Shreveport
40 So. 2d 235 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1948)
Edwards v. Town of Ponchatoula
34 So. 2d 394 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1948)
Boise City v. Boise City Development Co.
238 P. 1006 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1925)
Marrero Land & Improvement Ass'n v. Town of Westwego
6 Pelt. 1 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 So. 367, 144 La. 849, 1918 La. LEXIS 1753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-hicks-lumber-co-v-town-of-oakdale-la-1918.