Case Name: SMITH et al. v. POLICE JURY OF CLAIBORNE PARISH et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1910-01-03
Citations: 125 La. 724
Docket Number: No. 17,673
Parties: SMITH et al. v. POLICE JURY OF CLAIBORNE PARISH et al.
Judges: PROVO STY, X, concurs.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 723–733

Head Matter:
(51 South. 701.)
No. 17,673.
SMITH et al. v. POLICE JURY OF CLAIBORNE PARISH et al.
(Jan. 3, 1910.
On Application for Rehearing, March 14, 1910.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Municipal Cokpobations (§ 956*) — Tax Election — Petition op Taxpayees — Sufficiency.
Under section 2, Act No. 202 of 1898, a petition of property taxpayers for a tax election in aid of a railway enterprise is sufficient, where the rate of the tax, the number of years the tax is to be levied, and the maximum amount to be raised as a bonus are designated.
[Ed. 'Note. — For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 2013; Dec. Dig. § 956.*]
2. Municipal Coepoeations (§ 956*) — Tax Elections — Validity op Statute.
Section 5 of Act No. 202 of 1898, in providing that such a tax election shall be carried by a majority of the votes cast at the election, is repugnant to article 270, Const. 1898, which requires a majority vote of the taxpayers entitled to vote under, the Constitution.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 2013; Dec. Dig. § 956.*]
3. Municipal Corporations (§ 956*) — Returns — Burden op Proof.
Where the returns of such a tax election show only a majority of the votes cast tOt be in favor of the proposed tax, the burden is' on the railroad company to prove with legal certainty that the votes cast in favor of the tax represent a majority of the taxpayers who were entitled to vote at the election.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 2013; Dec. Dig. § 956.*]
4. Municipal Corporations (§ 956*) — Petition — Publication of Names of Signers— Necessity — Tax Election.
The publication of the names of all the signers of a petition for a special tax election is not required by the statute.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 2013; Dec. Dig. § 956.*]
5. Elections (§ 113*) — Registration of Voters — Striking Names prom Register.
Where the names of voters have been entered on the book of registration, they cannot be stricken therefrom in a collateral proceeding.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Elections, Cent. Dig. § 109; Dec. Dig. § 113.*]
6. Municipal Corporations (§ 956*) — Special Tax Elections — Qualification of Voters.
The bare circumstance that the property of certain taxpayers is not described on the assessment rolls with sufficient particularity to affirmatively show its situs in the parish ward wherein they reside does not prove that such taxpayers were not entitled to vote at a special tax election held in such ward in aid of a railway enterprise.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 2013; Dec. Dig. § 956.*]
Appeal from Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Claiborne; B. P. Edwards, Judge.
Action by W. J. L. Smith and others against the Police Jury of Claiborne Parish and the Shreveport & Northeastern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and the railway company appeals.
Affirmed.
E. H. McClendon, for appellant. Barnette, Roberts & Goff, for appellees.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
Plaintiffs, taxpayers of ward 7, Claiborne parish, sue to annul a special tax election called and held to ascertain the wishes of the property taxpayers of said ward relative to granting aid to the Shreveport & Northeastern Railway Company in the construction of its line from Homer to Shreveport.
The said election was contested on several grounds of alleged nullity and unconstitutionality.
There was judgment in favor of the plaintiffs annulling said election. The railway company has appealed.
Motion to Dismiss.
The suggestion that this appeal should be dismissed, because the police jury has not appealed, is without force, as that defendant is before us as an appellee. Guy v. McDuffie, 123 La. 641, 49 South. 222.
Whether the judgment can be disturbed as between the plaintiffs and the police jury is another question. The motion is therefore overruled.