The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-12-14
THE ASSESSMENT CASE.
JUDGE MONROE DECIDES THAT THE
LAW HAS PROVIDED A REMEDY FOR
THE REDUCTION OF ASSESSMENTS.

LAW HAS PROVIDED REMEDY FOR
THE REDUeTJoN OF ASSESSMENTS.
The ease OF the State OK rel. T.. Elliott vs. the
Board Of Assessors was decided in the Third
District Court. Judge Monroe rendered a
lengthy. able, and yery important decision.
The whole story OF The case. its facts. and the
decision are Rlven In the following synopsis:
The case ls based Oh an application for "a writ
Of mandamus to eompe the Board Of Assessors
to reduce the assessment of the Aurora planta-
ton In this parish from SOS 600 to $4,000 which
last amount relator claims was the assessment
fixed when he boHRhtthe plantation In 1876; sub
seauently he ascsrteined that the assessment
for 1877 and 1873 was s25. 900 and he applied to
the board for reduction OF the assessment by
asking the appoiatmant of an arbitrator to have
the property re- assessed Reator notified the
board that Mr.. NumaTrepagner was appointed
assessor on his aide and asked the board to
name q competent person to act with Mr.. Ire
pagnier In revising the assessment, but his re-
quest was refused. Alleging that the acts OF the
board in the premises were unjust and arbi
trary, he has recourse to the wit Of mandamus
as above recited.
The board for answer says:
l. That the assessment was made conformably
to act No. g6 of 1877
D. That no application was made during the
bciuy Cr.iipV! " low w LpuhDtioh VI WI
rection Of the rolls.
g. THAT under aet No. es the assessment rolls
are made to serys as the basis OF al taxation
made and for three years thereafter. and that
neither the court nor respondents can alter re-
latOr's assessment.
L. That the assessment In question has been
merged into n Judgment In favor of the State
and city and cannot be reduced.
g. ] hat the assessment OF S25 600 was made
prior to July l. 1877 and the rolls were closed on
November g. 1877. p1o which time no appica-
ton for reductions ha6 been made
Judge Monroe, .revEewing at length the facts
Of the case as Appearing from the evidence
says:
the property had beer. assessed at SO 900 would
have been more correct If he had stated that 1t
had been assessed at that amount
He offered to prove that 1t was &15. 600 In 1878
but this evidence was rejected as irrelevant Re
lator did not show that the board failed to OBJ
serve the law.
Act No. % Of 1877 inaugnrated a system for The
assessment and collection Of taxes which In
some respects materially differs from any other
be IN i%1te "a har sws " Is
Under the provisions of the law ample Oppor-
tunity was afforded u the taxpayer 70 be- heard
In his own behalf. (Sections 81. 49, S9). Relator
made no effort during the year 1877 to have the
original assessment Of 1877 again put In force.
or to have the assessment OF s25 600 reduced
The first step In this matter seems to have
been taken by relator nearly one year after the
9 osing of the rolls Of 1877. Now. the question
is What wrong hes Tiator suffered which this
the necessary system Of assessment and taxa
ton, and the judiciary cannot be made, without
violating the spirit Of our government to ful-
Ill that duty.
The court then briefly recites the different
methods Of relief pointed out by the law In
this case 1t appears that these means of relief
were neglected, and after the expiration OF the
delay fixed by law the court IL asked In sub |
stance. to do one OF two things:
Either to assess tho property after hearing
testimony as 10 lis yalne and compel the asses
sors to correct their rolls Or to order the asses
sors t. submit the gaeston to arbitration as
1t is manifest, as already stated. that tho as
sessment of property Is not a judicial func
sessors. aud method provided for the revision
of Il 'ir actions. 1t Is to be presumed that the
lawmaker Intended the adoption Of that method
by the Taxpayers or.adopted by the courts.
It is evident that the arbitration, being mere
incident to the system established by the act OF
the assessor to correct an assessment upon an
application made during the prescribed delay.
In the 9f the pre- Court 2s An
show that he resorted to the mode. provided by
law and within the time prescribed. to have the
also % An. Al 81 An $40, 81 An 49, 10 An. ~. II
An. SO. 1876
The law does NOS provide for the reassess-
ment 81, property when acquired after II has
already been as 5esfed and there Is no auth ority
for the establishment of such q doctrine by the |
courts. Therefore the assessment of 1877 is |
final the reiator he's been deprived Of no right |
and has sustained no injury emitting him to |
redress by this court. Relator claims TO have |
made an application for relief for the reduc- |
tion of the assessment In 1878, according TO law.
ON the twenty fourth Of August, 1878 and that |
the same was refused. He, therefore. claims
the right to pray for n mandamus. This prop |
ositon is correct Ii the same provisions of law |
govern the valuation or assessment of property |
fer the purposes q taxation In the year 1873 as
governed the assessment Of 1877.
In other words, 81 he has made application,
within tho time prescribed by law. for n reduc-
will hear him. The language Of section 80 Of
Tho law is not susceptible Of misconstruction.
It applies to the assessment made in 1877 and
distinctly provides that the assessment shall |
serve az the basis=of all taxation for Tia year In
which It was madeand for three years thereafter
except as to movable property, The same pro
Of the act proEiding for the assessment of
property other than that situated In the parish
Of Orleans.
A uniform ruleand system having been es-
tablished throughout the State, the case Mt bar
Is not within ths1se executions. 1t is claimed
however. thai act No Of the extra session of
The court has eEamined this act with care and
failed to discover the properties attributed to IT,
first quoted, was discharged when the assessors
revised and corrected the assessment of 1877
20 as to mako 1t conform to existing laws,
among which were provisions tn the effect that
he assessment made in 1877 should serve as tho
basis of taSation:for four years.
To mako such a revision therefore as would
change tho basis of taxation thus established
would be not to conform to law. would abrogate
he law, and. as Ne have seen, would be to pro
vide a reassessment for those who had not
paid their taxes and ut the same time hold those
who had paid according 10 the conditions Of the
Did assessment:
The court is compelled to believe that the
intended that the assessment should
30 made to conform as well to the unrepealed
provisions of agtiele 90 as to the amendatory
sections Of act No. .. and that the latter act did
lot therefore. operate the destruction Of the
lection 30 of said oct No 96. tho provisions of
which are still: in force ms to the assessment of
'eal estate made In 1877 and contemplated
~ IT,
For these reasons It Is ordered that this suit