Case Name: Philip H. Sims vs. Blaney T. Walshe
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1897-04-12
Citations: 49 La. Ann. 781
Docket Number: No. 12,099
Parties: Philip H. Sims vs. Blaney T. Walshe.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 781–792

Head Matter:
No. 12,099.
Philip H. Sims vs. Blaney T. Walshe.
On Motion to dismiss.
When the petition avers the value of the property sued for is sufficient to give this court jurisdiction, and no issue has been raised on that point in the lower court, the motion to dismiss the appeal will not prevail, unless the record clearly shows there is no jurisdiction.
Least of all, will the motion be favored when the appellee has affirmed our jurisdiction by dismissing the previous appeal to the Circuit Court, on the ground that the appeal was within our cognizance.
On the Merits.
When the authority exists for the sale made by the tax collector his deed is not vitiated by the reference in the deed to a superseded legislative act, instead1 of the existing act under which the sale is made.
The case is discriminated from those in which no authority existed for the sale.
WatTtins, J., Dissenting: A tax sale made in 1888, in the enforcement of taxes assessed in 1887, under and in pursuance of the revenue law of 1882, is null and void» because the same had been repealed and superseded by the revenue law of 1886.
In case a tax sale is made under a current revenue law, enacted under the Constitution of 1879, the adjudieatee carries the burden of establishing, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that all legal requirements of assessment and sale-have been complied with, on pain of nullity.
The nullity of the primary tax sale to the State is necessarily imparted to a subsequent title which the State conveys to a third person.
A eo-owner of an undivided interest in real estate can not be permitted to imperil the interest of his joint proprietor, by means of a collusive combination with other persons to interpose an apparent, though fraudulent obstacle to the-enjoyment of his rights, through the instrumentality of an acquiescence in an illegal tax sale.
APPEAL from the Oivil District Oourt- for the Parish of Orleans-King, J.
Frank L. Richardson and Lloyd Posey for Plaintiff, Appellant.
Gurley & Mellen and Buck, Walshe & Buck for Defendant, Appellee.
On Motion to Dismiss.
Argued and submitted May 28, 1896.
Opinion handed down April 12, 1897.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Miller, J.
The defendant moves to dismiss this appeal, on the ground that the property plaintiff seeks to recover is shown by the record, it is claimed, not to be of the value sufficient to give jurisdiction to this court of this controversy.
The defendant relies in support of his motion on the assessments of the property for taxes for the years 1887 to 1893 at one thousand dollars: and on the fact that shortly before the institution of this suit the property was adjudicated, at public auction for one thousand four hundred and fifty dollars, the plaintiff then being the owner and defendant, the adjudicatee, failing to comply. Assessments can not be accepted as conclusive on the question of value, and those relied on in this case carry less weight, from the fact that the same valuation, one thousand dollars, has been carried on the rolls for the past eight years. A bid at an auction as a test of value depends upon the number of persons in attendance, the competition of bidders, and other circumstances. As against the assessments and the bid of one thousand four hundred and fifty dollars, there is, in the allegation in the petition, that the property is of the value of twenty-five hundred dollars, and the affidavit of two auctioneers, familiar with property values, that, the property is of value exceeding two thousand dollars. There was no contestation in the lower court as to the jurisdiction, and in the absence of any testimony specially directed to that issue, we do not feel authorized to dismiss an appeal, always to be maintained, unless the basis to deny the right is clearly established. We have the jurisdictional allegation in the petition not controverted by any pleading. Without passing on the question of plaintiff's right to produce in this court the affidavits as to value, admissible as a general rule when the petition does not show jurisdiction as to amount, in our opinion the allegation in the petition, on this point, is not disproved by the testimony in the record. 1 Hennen's Digest, p. 16, Nos. 1 and 3.
The brief for plaintiff states the appeal first taken to the Court of Appeals was dismissed on defendant's motion, on the ground the petition showed the value of the property b eyond the jurisdiction of that court. The plaintiff's case would be hard if now, on defendant's motion, he was denied his appeal here.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion to dismiss is denied.