Case Name: Carondelet Canal Navigation Company vs. City of New Orleans
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1892-03
Citations: 44 La. Ann. 394
Docket Number: No. 10,834
Parties: Carondelet Canal Navigation Company vs. City of New Orleans.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 394–399

Head Matter:
No. 10,834.
Carondelet Canal Navigation Company vs. City of New Orleans.
Our former decree in dismissing this appeal was based upon the fact that it appeared from the record that the judgment appealed from was unsigned, was correct; but under the showing now made that the judgment had been duly-signed and that the omission from the recoi’d of the signed judgment was an error of the clerk which had escaped the notice of the city’s counsel, thepublic interests represented by the city justify us, under precedents of this court, in extending a more liberal relief than could be claimed by merely private litigants.
The Carondelet Canal Navigation Company was exempted from taxation by an. amendment to its charter, approved March 10, 1858.
’The immunity was not repealed by Act 207 of the Constitution of 1879.
The public benefit anticipated from the corporation is sufficient consideration for the exemption; none other need be shown.
The plaintiff admits ownership on the part of the State.
The property being a constituent part of the canal, incident thereto, and serving the purpose of the company in maintaining its navigation, is exempt from taxation.
A PEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. VoorMes, J.
Chas Louque for Plaintiff and Appellee.
W. B. Sommerville, Assistant City Attorney, and Carleton. Hunt, •City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
Plaintiff sued out an injunction claiming exemption from taxation on the property described in the petition.
The defendant presented the plea of general denial.
The case was tried.
The judgment appealed from making the injunction perpetual and decreeing the exemption of the property is not signed, nor is there any evidence that it has been actually signed. It was intended to be definitive, and to decide all the points in controversy.
A judgment is incomplete until signed.
That it may be appealed from it must be signed. Bertrand Saloy vs. Collins, 30 An. 63; Jacob vs. Preston, 31 An. 514.
The court will notice ex officio that the judgment is not signed. Chartier vs. Police Jury, 9 An. 42.
Appeal is dismissed at defendant's costs.