The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1885-08-29
SALE DECLARED VAIN

4o' *
a TAX SALE DECLARED VAL
Judgment Rendered by the FIT. c,rc
Court OF Appeals In and for the
DParish Of Assumption.
Follow ns Is the opinion and iudcme
rendered oy the Judges OF the Fifth Circ,
of Appeal g In the tax suit of NJ. Bonro
Felicie y rice ct ais, which was decided
favor of plaintiff By the District Court
Assumpt lion parish and appealed to the =;
cult Cod RI on the merits. Judge Blake W,
the org, Rn of the court and Judoe sm;,
concur1 FED in the decision.
This case differs from the suits of Pint,
do Us. Marie Landry and David Us. Ola;
borne ougas III this: In the former sui
the plai ntin instituted direct action wb;c
was me4' oy general denial which enable,
defend ant to introduce evidence in snnno,
| of her position. In the latter case the ~
can OF defendant to the PROCEEDING o.
N were taken as answers on tbf
law side of the oasees; the only side Distric,
Judges Beattie and Knob!ock held tha,
those cases had. In other words, they ruled
that only questions of law were involved,
The supplemental answers, containing a
general denial to the petitions for injunc-
ton, having been ruled out by the District
Judges, necessarily prevented the introduc-
ton of evidence. The Court of Appeals
now remands the latter cases for the pur-
pose of allowing the defendants to file an
swers and to introduce proof as in the for
mer case, and in other respects clearly init
mates tl0t all the defendants will have
Judgment. in their favor upon complying
with the condition pFecedent-.that is, make
their proof. This statement explains the
seeming popularity in these important ca
ses to which we made reference in our issue
of the 18th inst: "That, notwithstanding
the fact that the answers Of defendants
we're pregnant with confessions of fact, the
Court of Appeals requires proof from the
Plaintiffs on their allegations" The opin-
ion and decree formulated by Judge Blake
are as follows:
Marcelin Bourg, appellee, rs. S. J. Blan-
chard, Sheriff, ct ais, appellants-COurt
of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, parish of As
sumption.
Under provision of Act SO OF 1882 the
State of Louisiana became the adjudicatee
of the following described property, to-wit:
=" tract of land situated in the parish of
Assumption, right bank of Bayou La
fourche, containing fifteen arpents, more
or less, in superficies, bounded now or for
,nerly on the one side by P. Stirling and
on the other side by ]. Aucoin, and which
mad been assessed in the name Of Auguste
Marcelin Bourg."
Pursuant to Act No. 81 of 1884, which
provides for the sale of property bid in for
and adjudicated to the State and of proper
ty on which taxoo are duo the State prior to
Dec. 81, 1879, the State ceded the property
to Mrs. F6licie Blanchard, wife of Ducroi-
zelie Blanchard.
Mrs. F6licie Blanchard, under the pro-
vision Of Act No. 81 of 1884 by which she
became owner, obtained from the Dhtriot
Judge ar order directed to the Sheriff to
seize and to take into his possession the
said property, and after three days. notice
OF said seizure given to Auguste Marcelin
Bourg, or the occupant of said described
to put her, the said F6licie Blnn-
ohard, in possession of the same.
Marcelin Bourg, the plaintiff in this case.
sets forth in his petition that he is owner
proprietor and possessor of tract of land
in the pariah of Assumption on the
right bank of Bayou Lafourche, about one
half OF mile below the parochial church,
one arpent front on said Bayou
Lafourche by a depth of three arpents, and
from thence front of about two arpents.
by the depth thereunto belonging, accord |
ing to the survey of the premises, between
lines, bounded on the upper
side by lot of Joseph A. Aucoin and the |
land of Etienne Giroir and below by land |
OF Marie and Modesto Bourg, with all the
buildings and improvements, and which hi
acquired on the 31st January, 1885, and IF
which he is now in peaceable and uyslis-
turbed possession.
lie further sets forth in his petitDn that
on the 18th day of February, 1879, he was
served by the Sheriff with MOTTO of the or
der obtained by Mrs. Blancbtrd from the
Judge, to-wit: the seizure greeted against
his property, which she cllms to have ac-
4uired from the State.
Plaintiff sets forth tiat if said order of
The Judge refers to his property, then he
attacks in nullity tie titles acquired by the
State in 1883 ard by Mrs. Blanchard in
1884 for Noncompliance with the law regu-
lating tax ssies. Plaintiff first objects to
The ordersf the Judge as not directed to
nim, az his name is Marcelin Bourg and
1ot Auguste Marcelin Bourg, as therein set
:onh; and because the description of the
and in said order does not correspond
With the description of his land.
Plaintiff urges, however, that if the con-
rary be held, then he sets up that the ad-
of the land contained in the Or
Ter, made by Alfred Tete, Sheriff, to the
State of Louisiana on the 9Th day of Janu-
Try, 1883. should have been in satisfaction
or taxes due prior to 31st December, 1879,
md the act is vitiated for having included
axes subsequently due for the years 1880,
S8l and 1882.