Lindner v. City of New Orleans

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Lindner v. City of New Orleans

40 So. 736, 116 La. 372, 1906 La. LEXIS 503

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 9, 1906

DocketNo. 15,916

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 40 So. 736 (Lindner v. City of New Orleans) 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

Lindner v. City of New Orleans, 40 So. 736, 116 La. 372, 1906 La. LEXIS 503 (La. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Statement.

MONROE, J.

Plaintiff alleges that at a-tax sale made under the authority of the city [374]*374of New Orleans, lie purchased certain properly from which he was subsequently evicted, at the suit of the owner, because the sale had not been sufficiently advertised, and he prays for judgment against the city for $7,500, as. the amount for which the property has recently been sold by the owner, and for $122.50 and $500, amounts expended by "him in the payment of costs and attorney’s fees, respectively, in the suit mentioned; and the defendant having interposed the exception of no cause of action, he (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment maintaining the same and dismissing his suit.

Opinion.

It appears that in the litigation with the owner of the property, plaintiff recovered the amounts paid by him therefor, together with costs and interest, as provided by article 233 of the Constitution of 1898. This being the remedy provided by our fundamental law, he has no standing for the prosecution of this suit, and even had he not availed himself of the remedy so provided, the case would be the same since the fault would have been his. A tax sale, in the absence of special legislation to the contrary, is generally held to be subject to the rule caveat emptor, and the purchaser assumes the risk of all illegalities and irregularities in the proceedings, of which, as they are open to his inspection, he is presumed to have notice.

He is therefore without recourse against the municipality at the instance of which the sale is made, and which, not pretending to sell its own property, warrants neither the title nor the return of the price. 2 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) pp. 919, 921, 1512; Desty on Taxation, § 850; Black on Tax Titles, c. 30, § 463; Hamilton v. Valiant, 30 Md. 139; Pennock v. Douglas County, 39 Neb. 293, 58 N. W. 117, 27 L. R. A. 121, 42 Am. St. Rep. 579; Budge v. City of Grand Forks (N. D.) 47 N. W. 390, 10 L. R. A. 165.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Statement.

MONROE, J.

Plaintiff alleges that at a-tax sale made under the authority of the city [374]*374of New Orleans, lie purchased certain properly from which he was subsequently evicted, at the suit of the owner, because the sale had not been sufficiently advertised, and he prays for judgment against the city for $7,500, as. the amount for which the property has recently been sold by the owner, and for $122.50 and $500, amounts expended by "him in the payment of costs and attorney’s fees, respectively, in the suit mentioned; and the defendant having interposed the exception of no cause of action, he (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment maintaining the same and dismissing his suit.

Opinion.

It appears that in the litigation with the owner of the property, plaintiff recovered the amounts paid by him therefor, together with costs and interest, as provided by article 233 of the Constitution of 1898. This being the remedy provided by our fundamental law, he has no standing for the prosecution of this suit, and even had he not availed himself of the remedy so provided, the case would be the same since the fault would have been his. A tax sale, in the absence of special legislation to the contrary, is generally held to be subject to the rule caveat emptor, and the purchaser assumes the risk of all illegalities and irregularities in the proceedings, of which, as they are open to his inspection, he is presumed to have notice.

He is therefore without recourse against the municipality at the instance of which the sale is made, and which, not pretending to sell its own property, warrants neither the title nor the return of the price. 2 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) pp. 919, 921, 1512; Desty on Taxation, § 850; Black on Tax Titles, c. 30, § 463; Hamilton v. Valiant, 30 Md. 139; Pennock v. Douglas County, 39 Neb. 293, 58 N. W. 117, 27 L. R. A. 121, 42 Am. St. Rep. 579; Budge v. City of Grand Forks (N. D.) 47 N. W. 390, 10 L. R. A. 165.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 So. 736, 116 La. 372, 1906 La. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindner-v-city-of-new-orleans-la-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack