Case Name: Charles McAlister v. R. K. Anderson, Tax Collector
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-05
Citations: 27 La. 425
Docket Number: No. 5618
Parties: Charles McAlister v. R. K. Anderson, Tax Collector.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 425–429

Head Matter:
No. 5618.
Charles McAlister v. R. K. Anderson, Tax Collector.
The State when selling a certain piece of property for taxes of 1871, due thereon, did not sell it freed from the taxes of 1872. The State had a concurrent mortgage and privilege to secure the taxes due for both years, and the sale did not purport to release the taxes of 1872. The former owner might have redeemed his land by complying with the requirements of the law after the sale, hut he could not have taken the property hack freed from the taxes of 1872. The purchaser bought the property subject to the taxes of that year,
APPEAL from the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, parish of Carroll. Sough, J.
Montgomery & Selony, for plaintiff and appellant. Leonard & Kennedy, and E. B. Steele, District Attorney, for defendant and appellee. ' •

Opinion:
Ludeling, C. J.
In October, 1873, the plaintiff purchased, at a tax sale, a plantation in the parish of Carroll; be paid the price bid, being the full amount of the taxes and penalties due thereon for the year 1871, and the costs of sale. In June, 1874, the same property was seized and advertised for sale for the taxes assessed on said property for 1872; and the purchaser enjoins the sale, on the grounds that the State sold the property to satisfy its lien or privilege on the property for the taxes of 1871, and sold it free from all incumbrances. The question for decision is, did the State sell the -property freed from the taxes of 18721 We think not. The State had concurrent mortgages and privileges to secure the taxes due for both years, and the sale did not purport to release the taxes of 1872. The former owner might have redeemed his land by complying with the requirements of the law after the sale; but surely he would not have taken the property back freed from the taxes of 1872. The purchaser bought the property subject to the taxes of 1872.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed with costs of appeal.