Case Name: Francois Lacroix, C. H. Stewart, Transferree, vs. Andre Camors and Henry St. Gez
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1882-05
Citations: 34 La. 639
Docket Number: No. 7319
Parties: Francois Lacroix, C. H. Stewart, Transferree, vs. Andre Camors and Henry St. Gez.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 639–646

Head Matter:
No. 7319.
Francois Lacroix, C. H. Stewart, Transferree, vs. Andre Camors and Henry St. Gez.
Where purchaser at tax sale has purchased property of A for a certain price, and paid over to the sheriff the amount of the writs, retaining in his own hands the balance; and afterwards, both the right of redemption, which A has by law, and all bis interest in the property are seized and sold by a creditor in another proceeding, A no longer has any claim to the balance in the hands of the original purchaser, iu fact no interest at all, as whatever he may have had has been sold.
A jmtition for a rehearing, which does not set forth the grounds on which the complainant charges the judgment is erroneous, though accompanied by a motion for delay to file pnuted briefs in support of application for rehearing, does not comply with tholaw, and hence does not retard the operation of the law under which the judgment becomes final.
APPEAL from tlie Fourth District Court for tlie Parish of'Orleans. Houston, J.
Gluts. Zouque, for Plaintiff and Appellant:
Í. The adjudicatee at sheriff’s sale, made for cash, must pay the full amount of his bid.
2.The sale of a tax payer’s right of redemption does not deprive him of his claim for the amount of the adjudication of the property.
Sinyleton & Browne, same side, on ai>plication for rehearing:
1. That in case of a sale made by a sheriff, the adjudication divests the defendant of whatever title he has in the property sold and vests the sathe in the adjudicatee. R. C. C. 2G08, 2617, 2620 ; R. C. P. 690 ; 6 La. 550 ; 13 La. 290; 19 La. 235; 9 Rob. 405, 414; 11 Rob. 270.
2. That the paper title to property thus sold must not be confounded with the ownership, since it is nothing more than the mere evidence of title or ownership. R. C. C. 1762.
3. That the purchaser, at sheriff sale, of property sold to pay taxes has the light, after satisfying the writ under which tlie property was sold, to retain a sufficient portion of the remainder of the piice to pay the tax mortgages and liens resting upon the property thus purchased by him, aud that he is bound thus to apply the sum reserved, and not retain and use it for his own benefit and apply other money in his hands, belonging to defendant in execution, to pay such tax mortgages and liens. R. O. P. C79.
4. That the vendor, with the light of redemption for a stated period, has the right to receive the price for which the property sold, and retain it until he exercises his right of redemption, at which time he must return the whole price. R. C. C. 2567, et seq.
5. If he fails to redeem, he lias the right to retain the price for which his property was sold with the right of redemption. That 1 lie failure to redeem does not forfeit the pnce for which the property sold. Jí. C. C. 2567; 32 An. 784.
íí. That any hiatus in a legislative act, which act clearly suggests what the omissions are which constitute such hiatus — aud if such omission, if not supplied or construed with the act, violates clear provisions oflaw and works great injustice to parties, then the court in last resprt must supply the omissions constituting such hiatus and thus administer right and justice between the parties, and not wrong and injury.
A. Robert, P. JE. Théard, G. H. Théard, Vitas. J. Théard, for Defendants and Appellees:
1. Real estate sold for taxes is redeemable upon reimbursement to the purchaser of the amount paid by him, with fifty percent, additional and costs. R. S. 3464; Acts of 1870, E. S., p. 40, Sec. 22.
2. If the amount claimed by the tax collector be less than the price bid, and the balance of said price be retained by the purchaser, the owner of the real estate possesses two rights: 1st. lie may redeem upon reimbursement of the real amount paid by the purchaser, with fifty por cent, additional, as aforesaid. 2d. Or, he may ratify and confirm the sale, and claim the balance of the price bid.
3. But, if, befoie exercising either of these two lights, he allows his property to bo seized again by an ordinary creditor under a judgment against liim, and his right of redemption under tho former sale be at tho same time seized and sold, then the owner is entirely and absolutely expropriated, and ho loses his rights, both of redemption and of ratification, under tho tax salo These rights become vested in tho purchaser of the property under tho second sale, and he, alone, can redeem the property.
4. No definitive deed of sale can be executed without payment of the taxes. R. S. 3020. Hence, tho purchaser may tender, and the sheriff may accept, as a portion of the price oi adjudication, the amount of taxes paid by the purchaser, in order to obtain a clear title.
5. No balance due by the purchaser at the tax sale can bo paid to the original owner, if he lias allowed liis property to be again seized and sold with the right of redemption.
6. The right of redemption cannot be sold separate from the xiroperty itself. It is inherent to the property, and the price may be settled in taxes.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Lew, J.
Certain property of Francois Lacroix was seized and offered for sale by the Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans, to satisfy executions of fieri facias on judgments for City taxes. At that sale Andró Camors hid the price of $7,100, and the property was adjudicated to him. The amount due on the writs was $2,000, which sum Camors paid to tho Sheriff, retaining in his hands the balance of $5,100. Under the law, Lacroix had the right to redeem the i>roperty within a certain time, on payment in cash of the " amount of fifty per cent, over and above the amount of the tax, and all costs incurred by the sale, and tho amount of all taxes paid since the sale." Before the expiration of the time, within which the right of redemption could ho exercised, tho same property and the right of redeeming it ,werc seized in the ease of the Metropolitan Bank vs. F. E. Dumas and Francois Lacroix, and offered for sale, when the property and the right of redemption were adjudicated to H. St. Gez, for the sn:n of $10,00!), of which St. Gez paid $6,295.04, in cash, and $3,704.96, in tax receipts for taxes due on said property. St. Gez thou exercised the. right of. redemption and sold the property to Camors for the sum of $16,000. It is admitted by the defendant that St. Gez was only a nominal party,'and that he made tho purchase above mentioned, at the instance, for the benefit, and for the purpose of perfecting Camors' full title to the property.
Lacroix, in his lifetime, instituted this suit for the purpose of recovering the sum of $5,100, retained by Camors on the first sale, and also the sum of $3,704, the amount paid in tax receipts on the second sale. After the death of Lacroix, his rights to this suit were sold at probate-sale and C. H. Stewart bought the same, and this suit is now prosecuted by Stewart.
Tliere was judgment of the Court a qua in favor of defendants, and plaintiff has appealed.
lVe find no error in the judgment. The purchaser at the tax sale paid to the sheriff the amount called for by the writ under which the sale was made. The defendant, in the writ, had been not fully divested of his title and ownership of the property. He had, under the law, two years within which he might, on certain fixed conditions, redeem the property and have his full ownership and possession restored to him. His acceptance or receipt of the amount bidin excess of that due on the writs, would have been a ratification of the sale and would have extinguished his right to redeem. Before the expiration of the right of redemption, other judgment creditors seized this same-property, all his right, title and interest therein including the right of redemption, and the last adjudication divested him of the property and his rights therein. The purchaser stood in his shoes, was transferree of all his rights and cut him off entirely. It would be most inequitable and unreasonable if his claim in this suit were recognized.
If Lacroix had redeemed the property, it cannot, for a moment, be contended that he would have to pay to Camors the whole amount of the adjudication, including the $5,100 which Camors had never p'a-id to anybody. The very terms of the law declared what he should pay, to-wit: the amount of taxes paid and fifty per cent, additional thereon, and the costs and taxes subsequently paid. At the second sale all his right, title and interest in the property were disposed of, including the right of redemption, and we think he was, by the last sale, stripped of the property and all claims incidental to or growing out of it. The. purchaser at the first sale became also the purchaser under the second sale, and is entitled to all the- rights which Lacroix had. St. Gez, when he acquired the right of redemption, could exercise it just as Lacroix himself could have done, and did so exercise it. To require him to do or pay more, has no foundation in law, equity or justice* The Judge, a quo well urges, in his reasons for judgment, that every bidder at the sale of the right of redemption knew that, iu order to redeem the property, he would be. only compelled to pay to Camors the amount the latter had paid for it, with fifty per cent, additional, and evidence of this amount was in the public records.
It is clear that if Lacroix had, himself, redeemed, he would not have been entitled to the balance of the purchase money from Camors. He did not, it is true, so redeem, but his right of redemption was sold, and all his rights growing out of, and incidental thereto, were acquired by another who stood in his place, with all rights, no more, no less; in other words, 1ns transferree acquired and represented only the rights and powers, in that regard, which Lacroix had possessed. JEi'go, if Lacroix could not, on the redemption claim the balance of the purchase price, if he redeemed, how can he do so, when he has parted with all right to redeem which has been vested in such transferree, subject to all the conditions which attached to the right when held by Lacroix.
We find no error in the judgment appealed from, which is affirmed at appellant's costs.