Case Name: In re LINDNER
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1904-05-23
Citations: 113 La. 772
Docket Number: No. 14,929
Parties: In re LINDNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 771–777

Head Matter:
(37 South. 720.)
No. 14,929.
In re LINDNER.
(May 23, 1904.)
On the Merits, Dec. 19, 1904.)
APPEAL — DISMISSAL—TAX SALE — IMMOVABLES— ADVERTISEMENT — TAX DEED — SETTING ASIDE.
On Motion to Dismiss.
1.Motion to dismiss because of irregularity or deficiency in the bond must be filed within three days from the filing of the transcript in the appellate court.
On the Merits.
2. Plaintiff sought for possession under a tax deed by petition asking for writ of seizure and possession.
3. This was met by an injunction of the owners, who, in their petition for the injunction, attacked plaintiff’s tax deed on two grounds. One of the grounds — want of notice — was passed without comment. The other — the insufficiency of the advertisement — was sustained.
4. The statute, repeatedly interpreted, requires the advertisement, for which the term of 30 days is fixed, to be published in a daily paper once a week during the time.
5. The advertisement in the last week of the 30 days must be published prior to the hour fixed for the sale, either in the morning of that day, or the day preceding.
An advertisement' published on the day of sale, after that hour, is not in accordance with the statute.
6. The holder "of the tax deed is entitled to the taxes he has paid on the property.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Walter Byers Sommerville, Judge.
Application of John E. Lindner to be put in possession of property bought at tax sale. Philip J. Helmbeck sued out an injunction, and from an order dissolving the same he appealed.
Beversed.
Dinkelspiel & Hart, for appellant. Theodore Cotonio, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
PROVOSTY, J.
The appellee, John F. Lindner, having acquired certain property at tax sale, applied to the court to he put in possession, and obtained an order accordingly. The appellant Philip J. Helmbeck, former owner of the property, sued out an injunction against the carrying out of the •writ of possession, on the ground that the tax sale was a nullity. The court dissolved the injunction, and Helmbeck has appealed. The appeal is suspensive, and the amount •of the bond, as required by law in such eases, has been fixed by the judge.
Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, in so far as suspensive, on the ground that the .amount of the bond is insufficient. In the alternative, he asks that the ease be remanded for the purpose of ascertaining whether the amount is sufficient, or not, for a suspensive appeal.
The motion cannot be considered, it having been made too late. Motions to dismiss for any irregularity or deficiency of the bond must be made within three days from the filing of the appeal in this court. In this case •the appeal was filed on June 24, 1903, and the motion to dismiss was filed on April 30, 1904. O'Reilly v. McLeod, 2 La. Ann. 138; Hall v. Nevill, 3 La. Ann. 326; Temple v. Marshall, 11 La. Ann. 613; Fisk v. Moss, 21 La. Ann. 329; Mitchell v. Lay, 4 La. Ann. 514; Kohn v. Davidson, 23 La. Ann. 467; Webb v. Keller, 39 La. Ann. 55, 1 South. 423; State v. Callac, 45 La. Ann. 27, 12 South. 19; Naghten v. Wife, 48 La. Ann. 799, 19 South. 762.
The motion to dismiss is denied.