The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-06-18

N|1o
was an illegal and that therefore the confession OF
Judgment was without effect and void To this Dosi
uoh cannot give my assent. think The called meet
ing OF the police jury at which the Judgment was con-
1essed was lawfully convened and that their action
was warranted by law. Indeed I doubt whether the
president of the police jury, without the consent or
authority OF majority of the MEMBERS could not law
fully have confessed the Judgment in favor of the COM
Panyespeclaly IN the absence of fraud error or un
tar dealing therefore of opinion thattlre police
jury had authority to confess theudgment in favor of
the company.
he third and last question shall consider in this
case, Is: Whether the defendant, B. f. Seogin, has
authority to collect the of taxes demanded of
tne Plahti1ts he facts necessary to be stated on
TINS point are these: The police jury refused to pay
the hrst lnstaiment due the subscription to the
STOCK OF the company before stated and also refs
ed tocause the assessment of % Der cent by the or
dlnanees OF the I'D of May, and June 5th 1854 of
e tax OF two Per cent levied by the ordinance of Oe
tooer I9th 1892 to be collected for said purpose and
the company having obtained Judgment against the
police jury, took rule VIM Holmes at the time col
lector OF parish taxes, to show cause why he should
not proceed to collect the tax assessed BY the police
Jury 10 pay the debt due the company; the rule
made absolute and VIM. Holmes collector of parish tax
was ordered to proceed forthwith to collect the
OF per cent assessed by the police Jury on the land
ed estate aforesaid This mandate of the court was
placed IN the hands of VIM. Holmes for execution but
he soon afterwards of office without executing
the mandate, which was handed over to his successor
In office the defendant, B. T. Seogn collector tax
IS for the parish of Caddo It appeals also thata IA
was issued to VIM Holmes in addition to the mandate
directing him. collector of parish taxes, to collect
he tax mentioned in the mandate 1t further appears
hat IL IA was also issued by the clerk to B. t. SEQ
5ln, commanding him to collect of the landowners of
he parish $4,000 of the debt due the company.
he defendant, B. I. Scogin, is proceeding 10 col
ect the taxes IN question: by order or of
he police jury, but by authority of this court and the
only mandate that the has ever issued was the
mandate to VIM Holmes, collector of parish taxes and
hat only commanded him to collect Ia DER cent as
assessed BY police jury the Of landed
state III the tableau of taxes for the year ls54 AS
MS mandate came to the hands of the defendant as
he successor of Holiness think he has the right and
hat 1t Is has duty to execute it, but do think that
he T. tas issued by the clerk conferred any authority
IN the defendant beyond that contained in the man
late OF this court and that he was without authority
2 demand of the plaintiffs more than one and three
lghths O one per cent as specified in said mandate
see acts Of 1853, act Ne 26s, sec. s, page 326.
am therefore of the opinion that the defendant, B
scogln collector of taxes for the parish of Caddo
vas without authority to collect of the plaintiffs the
mount ct taxes demanded of them
Fer these reasons iii ordered adjudged and decreed
hat the defendant B. T. seogln be reetrained and in
b'ed from collecting from the plaintiffs more than