Brown v. Pontchartrain Land Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Brown v. Pontchartrain Land Co.

20 So. 711, 48 La. Ann. 1188, 1896 La. LEXIS 597

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 18, 1896

DocketNo. 12,142

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 20 So. 711 (Brown v. Pontchartrain Land Co.) 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

Brown v. Pontchartrain Land Co., 20 So. 711, 48 La. Ann. 1188, 1896 La. LEXIS 597 (La. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by.

McEnery, J.

The plaintiff alleges that she is the owner of certain immovable property described in her petition; that the same was sold by the tax collector, under Act 82 of 1884, for the unpaid taxes of 1876; that one J. H. Griffiths purchased the same in 1894, by virtue of said tax sale, and that he sold t.he property to the defendant company, which instituted proceedings for the purpose of obtaining possession of said property. She prays for an injunction restraining the defendant company from disturbing her lawful possession, and the annulment of the tax sale, and an order to erase the same from the records.

There was judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for.

The tax sale was based on the assumed fact that the taxes of 1876, due the State, had never been paid, and that the property had been returned, as delinquent, to the mortgage office.

[1189]*1189The property was returned as delinquent to the mortgage office, but the fact is that the property was not delinquent, and the taxes for 1876 had been paid. A certificate from the tax collector shows that the property was not delinquent, and the tax rolls show that the property was assessed in 1876 to the Oanal Bank and the taxes paid.

There was no basis for the tax sale, and it is therefore null and void.

The Canal Bank sold the property, in 1876, to Duncan F. Kenner. It is immaterial whether he or the bank paid the taxes. They were paid, and this was sufficient to stop all proceedings against the property, thereafter instituted, to enforce the payment of taxes.

The return of the property to the' mortgage office as delinquent, was an error and an inexcusable one, and the tax rolls show that the taxes had been paid.

No title was vested in Griffiths by the tax sale, and he could transfer none to the defendant company.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by.

McEnery, J.

The plaintiff alleges that she is the owner of certain immovable property described in her petition; that the same was sold by the tax collector, under Act 82 of 1884, for the unpaid taxes of 1876; that one J. H. Griffiths purchased the same in 1894, by virtue of said tax sale, and that he sold t.he property to the defendant company, which instituted proceedings for the purpose of obtaining possession of said property. She prays for an injunction restraining the defendant company from disturbing her lawful possession, and the annulment of the tax sale, and an order to erase the same from the records.

There was judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for.

The tax sale was based on the assumed fact that the taxes of 1876, due the State, had never been paid, and that the property had been returned, as delinquent, to the mortgage office.

[1189]*1189The property was returned as delinquent to the mortgage office, but the fact is that the property was not delinquent, and the taxes for 1876 had been paid. A certificate from the tax collector shows that the property was not delinquent, and the tax rolls show that the property was assessed in 1876 to the Oanal Bank and the taxes paid.

There was no basis for the tax sale, and it is therefore null and void.

The Canal Bank sold the property, in 1876, to Duncan F. Kenner. It is immaterial whether he or the bank paid the taxes. They were paid, and this was sufficient to stop all proceedings against the property, thereafter instituted, to enforce the payment of taxes.

The return of the property to the' mortgage office as delinquent, was an error and an inexcusable one, and the tax rolls show that the taxes had been paid.

No title was vested in Griffiths by the tax sale, and he could transfer none to the defendant company.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 So. 711, 48 La. Ann. 1188, 1896 La. LEXIS 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-pontchartrain-land-co-la-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack