The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1855-10-10

II tHe IoHoWliS deelSloh, feHueIeu u9 Inc supieh
lti court of Louisiana, at opelousas, on the lot
! nit, upon question formerly before him,
e Judge of the court Of this district and of mnc
d importance to the vicksburg, Shreveport an
n Texas railroad company. as well as to the "a
y payers. Of Caddo parish, The decision Wa
l. rendered by full bench and was unanlmousl
J. SUPREME CouRr-P Present: chiefjustice Mel
y rick, associates VOORHEES,, Buchanan, spof1or
: and Lea Police jury of the parish Of St MAJ.
VS.. Royal w Harris. Appeal from the d dlstne
court Of St: Mary parish. The court de 7s7r@
h the followingeopinion: -. II .s.rr... 2,
n Me,1ick, c. J-This suit was Instituted D
+ the police jury Of the parish OF ST. Mary 70 fe
: cover for the use of the Opelousas ana Urea
Western railroad company $3.50 assessed :ss'91, o.
0 the landed estate Of the defendant, estimated
e $4,000. The action is based upon an ordl
nance Of the jury Of the SAID parish, pass
:, led in the month Of October 1882, by when
tax of three per centum was levied on the land
: ed estate as assessed on the tax roll OF 1881
: and payable in six annual instruments OF one
; half of one per cent each, commencing on inc
;. first day OF, June 1858, to pay the subscription
! Of 1854 shares of stock to said company. The
answer alleges in substance that the assess ss
7 ment oft tax is Illegal, because made upon
i the assessment roll of 1851, and because it was
made not only upon the, land, but also upon
the iuapyopenaeats on the same, the nqchaaaefy,
neot cattle, horses and mules attached to the
plantation. The Judge Of the lower court be-
I ing Of the opinion, that the act OF the legisla-
ture authorsing the levying Of the tax contem-
plated the land only as the object Of taxation,
duced the assessment from 1886 000to $22, 800.
He gave Judgment accordingly in favor ofthe
police jury for s114, with legal interest from
June l, 1858, until paid:. The reduction Of
s15, 100, made by the judge Of the lower court
is composed Of the Improvements upon the
plantation estimated BY witnesses at say $780,
600, and the horses, mules and neat cattle at
tached to the plantation estimated at the furth-
er sum Of $500 The defendant appealed =
Since the appeal has been pending the .defen
dant has departed this lfe and the admins
traitor and Administrative Of his succession have
been made parties to the suit. Plaintiff has
filed an answer to the appeal, praying that
the judgment be amended SO as to give the |
plaintiff the whole amount claimed. The obiec-
tons to the payment Of this tax urged in argu
ment are reducible to the twopoints mentioned
in the answer: 1st. The tax ought to have
been levied on the land alone, and notupon the |
Improvements and horses, mules and neat cat |
tie employed in cu1tiva,ing the land Cd. The
assessment ought not to have been made upon
the tax roll Of 1851, On the first point, we
think that the term ''landed estate" contained
in the act of the legislature, approved March
~, 1852, upon which the,police jury were au
thorised BY the act to levy a tax to pay, the
amount Of subscriptions to the stock of corpo-
raions undertaking works of internal improve
ments, clearly embraces not only the land but
all houses, fixtures and improvements OF every
kind thereon, and all machinery, neat cattle,
horses and mules when attached to and used on
a plantation or farm. The ordinary meaning
Of the words ''landed estate" seems to be an in
terest and estate in and pertaining to lands
Thus we say, a landed proprietor, and mean
thereby any person having an estate in lands,
whether highly improved or not. The civil code
not only includes as a part of an immovable the
buildings and other constructions thereon,
whether they have their foundation in the soil
or not, but among other things the cattle (les
which the owner has placed upon it
or its service and improyemcnt.-C.C G. 455-459.
But in reference to taxation the Legislature has
defined what is meant by landed estate. The
irst object Of taxation specified in the act to
provide for the government Of this State, passed
n 1917, is expressed in these words: g Objects !
# taration" First all lands and lots of ground
ying in this State, owned and claimed by any
person or corporation, whether patented or not, 8
including in the assessment thereof all houses,
ixtures improvements of every kind or value
hereon OF affixed thereto, all machinery, neat c
cattle, horses and mules, when attached to and i
lsed on plantation or farm" This same pro- 7
tison was in force at the time Of the passage of
lie act Of 1852, and was reenacted in the acts I
If 1853 and 1855. The assessment complain t
d Of in this case is in the precise language of
he act of ! SAT, and in the language contained
n the forms sent by the auditor Of public ac i
counts to the assessor Of the parish Of St. Mary c
md other parishes to be filled up by them in t
he assessment Of the taxes. That this formu- S
a contains the objects of taxation intended I'M a
Ter the term ''landed estate" will further APP g
oear by reference to the manner in which the a
assessment Of the parish tax is made. A new j
is not made out, but the assessment d
oil for the State taxes is taken as the basis of
he tax for parish purposes, and the parish tax Q
extended over the tax roll of the State taxes, t
Jay for one-thirds one-half, or whatever larger +
" smaller proportion thereof the police jury Iii
nay assess in the manner provided by law.-~ e
The legislature, therefore, in comforting the G
power to levy the tax upon the landed estate, n
must have intended it should be levied on this c
,biect of taxation assessed on the tax roll for
he purposes Of the State, act 1847, p. I'll,
ec a. The fixtures upon plantation as !
veil as the horses and mules attached to it form h
% completely part Of the same that were the i
ak collector to seize the tract of land for the
,ayment of the tax, he would also be obliged y
o seize them as constituting part of the same. e
Up. 645. On the second point, viz: that the t
was illegal because the tax roll Of e
he year 1851 was taken as the basis Of the a
anne, it may be observed that there is nothing v
n the record to show that the assessment roll #
f the yearl852 had been completed Act Act Of c
$50, D. 1856, sec. 2728. In the absence of b
ny allegation and proof to the contrary, it is v
,ut fair to presume that the police jury took the
asst assessment roll as the one upon which to e
evy the tax. The answer in this case admit u
al III .t tho noIice iurv submitted the ordinance l.