Case Name: HIRST et al. v. XETER REALTY, Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1915-04-12
Citations: 138 La. 398
Docket Number: No. 20224
Parties: HIRST et al. v. XETER REALTY, Limited.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 397–407

Head Matter:
(70 South. 339)
No. 20224.
HIRST et al. v. XETER REALTY, Limited.
(April 12, 1915.
On the Merits, Nov. 29, 1915.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Aippeal and Error <&wkey;364 — Motion to Dismiss.
That the return day was fixed for a date more than 60 days after the date of the granting of the order of appeal, if there is nothing to show that such error is appellant’s fault, is not ground for a dismissal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent.Dig. §§ 1969-1976; Dec.Dig. <@=364.]
2. Appeal and Error <@^36A-Return Day —Prayer eor Fixing — Propriety—“Fixed According to Law” — “Fixed by the Judge.”
Where the return day in an appeal was fixed for a day more than 60 days after the date of granting the order of appeal, such error was not chargeable to the fault of appellant, because of appellant’s prayer that such day be “fixed by the judge,” instead of “fixed according to law,” the meaning of the two terms being legally synonymous.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other oases, see Appeal and Error, C'ent.Dig. §§ 1969-1976; Dee.Dig. <&wkey;364.]
On the Merits.
3. Taxation <&wkey;805 — Delinquency— !Tax Sale — Title—Necessity—Possession.
Where a tax deed was annullable for failure to advertise the sale in the official journal, and because notice of the delinquency was not given to the debtor but he did not bring his action to annul within 3 years, as required by Const, art. 233, such action will not lie because of the want of possession either actual or constructive by the tax purchaser, since possession is not essential to the title by prescription liberandi causa obtained through the tax deed.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1593-1597; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>805.]
4. Taxation <S=»805 — Tax Sale — Pkesceiption.
Such constitutional provision creates a prescription liberandi causa, and not one acquirandi causa.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1593-1597; Dec. Dig. &wkey;805.]
5. Taxation &wkey;>805 — Tax Sales — Nullity Suits — Constitutional Pbovision — Exceptions.
Aside from those specifically provided, the only exceptions to the operation of Const, art. 233, requiring tax debtors to bring nullity suits to set aside tax deeds within 3 years are (1) where the tax debtor has been in actual possession since the sale, and (2) where the sale is vitiated by fraud.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1593-1597; Dec. Dig. &wkey;805.]
6. Taxation <&wkey;805 — Tax Sale — Pbima Eaoie Validity.
Where, in an action to annul a tax deed, the deed was not introduced in evidence or its contents otherwise proved it stood as prima facie valid.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1593-1597; Dec. Dig. &wkey;805.]
Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson Davis; Alfred M. Barbe, Judge.
Action by Ida Hirst and others against the Xeter Realty, Limited. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Judgment set aside, and suit dismissed.
Geo. F. Poole, of Lake Charles, and Wm. Winans Wall, of New Orleans, for appellant. Wallace H. Adams, of Jennings, and Cline, Cline & Bell, of Lake Charles, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
PROVOSTY, J.
The appeal herein is moved to be dismissed on the ground that the return day was fixed for a day more than 60 days after the date of the granting of the order of appeal.
Nothing shows that this error is imputable to the fault of the appellant; it is not, therefore, ground for dismissal. Hodge v. Monroe Mercantile Co., 105 La. 668, 30 South. 142; Railroad Co. v. Baton Rouge Brick Yard, 136 La. 833, 67 South. 922.
This case is sought to be differentiated from those in which the court has heretofore refused to dismiss the appeal, on the ground of an erroneous return day having been fixed, by pointing out that in the present case the prayer for the fixing of the return day was not that it he fixed "according to law," hut simply that it be "fixed by the judge." We can see no difference between the two prayers. The prayer that the jud.ge fix the return day cannot mean anything else than that he fix it according to law. It cannot possibly he interpreted as meaning that he fix it in violation or disregard of law.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.