Homer guardian. (Homer, La.) 1888-1890, 1890-05-23
TAXSALES.
Justice EeEnery Reviews the
Halter.

Below is given the text OF an
opinion read on last Monday by
Mr.. Justice McEnery, of the
supreme.court, on the matter of
tax sales:
Joseph P. MARTINEZ and State
ex rel, Joseph P. Martinez vs..
State Tax Collector Third, Fifth
and Second Districts, City of New
Orleans.-Undcr the provisions of
act SO of 1883 the tax collector Of
the Second, Third and Fifth dis
tricts, in the parish Of Orleans,
seized and advertised for sale GER
tain immoyable properties of the
plaintiff and relator, described in
his petition, for taxes due thereon
and Fhieh wgis ass6rned BY him.
The plaintiff purchased the pro-
perties at tax sales made in pur-
snance of act 81 Of 1884. He en-
joined the tax collectors from pro.
ceeding with the sale of said
property:
There was Judgment aissolving
the injunction without damages
from which the plaintiff appealed.
There were Several exceptions
taken to the rulings of the district
jadgein the admission of evidence.
The objection IN each case went
only to it's effect.
The reasons assigned fot the
writ of injunction are numerous.
We will only examine those that
are serious.
First-The plaintiff alleges that
the taxes, tax liens, privileges and
mortgages are prescribed by three
and FIVE years. There is no ground
for the plea Of prescription. The
plaintiff assumed the taxes due
on the property. They were part
Of the purchase price. If any
prescription attaches it is that Of
ten years.
Second-Act SOof 1883 is at
tackled as being in conflict with
article 2l0of the constitution.
The reason for the alleged un.
constitutienaIity of the actis that
the adjudication of property to the
state is equivalent to ITS forfeit
ure, Which is prohibited by said
article.
The most conclusive answer to,
this proposition is the article
itself. There is in the constitu-
ton no prohibition on the state to
purchase property either at private
public or tax sale. The object of
the article 2l0 was to prevent the
state from acquiring property for
taxes by forfeiture. 1t changed
the mode of enforcing the collect,
ION Of taxes and provided for, d
direct seizure, without suit. The
state is not prohibited from pur-,
chasing at the tax sales in pur.
suance Of said article.
J THIRD 1t is urged by plaintiff
that the adjudication to the state
in pursuance Of act W Of 1882 ex-
tinguished the taxes on said pro-
perty by confusion, and that when
the property was adjudicated to
him under act 81 of 1884, he &C.
CURED said property free from all
taxes and lax membranes.
Conceding that the taxes were ex |
tingu,shed by confusion when the
state, in absence of bidders, pur-
chased the property at the sale
under act SO of 1882, no reasons
are urged Or can be urged why
the state, being the owner Of the
could not sell the same
ind fix the price and impose such
conditions on the sale as she
deemed fit and proper. There is
10 restriction that can be placed
upon the conditions which she
may impose upon the sale Of her
property. In act 81 Of 1884, the
state fixed the price of the pro
oerty which had been adjudlcated-
% her under act 50 OF 1882. The |
price fixed by SAID act for said |
property was the state, city, parish
.ud municipal taxes due prior to
Dec. 81, 1879, with interest, costs
ind charges, and all unpaid taxes
subsequent to The 3lst December,