Case Name: Succession of Jean Marie Duran. On Opposition of the City of New Orleans
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1882-04
Citations: 34 La. 585
Docket Number: No. 7636
Parties: Succession of Jean Marie Duran. On Opposition of the City of New Orleans.
Judges: Justices Poché and Fenner dissent.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 585–587

Head Matter:
No. 7636.
Succession of Jean Marie Duran. On Opposition of the City of New Orleans.
Where there was a judgment in the lower court homologating an account of administration, so far as not opposed, which judgment had become final, and where the only opposition to the account was a claim for §237.60 for drainage tax, this Court has no jurisdiction to determine the merits of the controversy, because the amount to he distributed is no longer an appealable bond.
APPEAL from the Second District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Tissot, J.
8. P. Blanc and Franlc JV". Butler, for Opponent and Appellant:
No adjudication of property, under a sale made by a State Tax Collector, for the compulsory-payment of State taxes, will extinguish the liens of the City of New Orleans, for its taxes» unless the price of adjudication is sufficient to pay the entire amount due for municipal as well as for State assessments. R. S., Sec. 2519 ; Acts of 1858, No. 165, Sec. 7, p. 117; Acts of 1869, No. 51, Sec. 4, p. 51; Bellocq vs. City of New Orleans, 31 An. p. 471.
L. L. Levy, for Administratrix, Appellee:
Registry essential to preserve the privilege claimed for drainage taxes against third persons. Subsequent registry has no effect. • Const. 1868, Act 123; Act 1842, Session Acts of 1871, Secs. 5, 9, 10 ; 26 A. R. 592; 28 A. R. 496 ; 25 A. R. 334 ; 27 A. R. 371.
Registry no effect as to third persons to establish validity of debt.
A sale by the State of land forfeited for taxes or delinquent taxes, has the effect of canceling drainage assessments. Drainage charges are in no souse municipal taxes. They are not predicated upon the State or municipal rolls.
The titles to the Revenue Acts of the State indicate the clear intent to provide only for the collection of the State revenue •

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered hy
Todd, J.
The City of New Orleans is appellant from a judgment of the late Second District Court of said City, dismissing her opposition to a final account of administration of the succession of Jean Marie Duran, deceased.
The opposition of the City is based upon a claim for drainage taxes, amounting to two hundred and thirty-seven dollars and sixty cents, and was filed on the 18th of March, 1878.
On the 19th of March, a judgment was rendered, and signed on the 23d same mouth, homologating the account so far as not opposed. This was the sole opposition to the account. Under, or hy the effect of that judgment, the entire funds of the succession, save enough to cover the amount of the City's claim, were distributed, as suggested in the account, or such is presumed to he the case, from the effect and terms of the judgment, leaving open for contestation, and the only fund remaining for distribution, the amount in controversy between the City and the succession for the taxes mentioned.
In the following December the opposition was tried, and judgment rendered dismissing the same. From this judgment of dismissal, and from this judgment alone, and not from any previous judgment or action of the Court, with reference to the account, this appeal was taken. The first judgment disposing of the entire fund to be distributed, save the small amount in suit, and homologating the account wherein not opposed, has long since become final. The claim of no creditor of tho succession reported in the tableau was opposed, nor opposition made to the distribution of the succession funds, save the amount of this tax claim of the City; and respecting this tax claim, no question is raised touching its legality or constitutionality.
The only amount that can possibly be distributed or paid by or under any judgment of this Court, and in fact the only amount involved when this appeal was filed, and even before it was taken, is the sum in litigation. The fund to bo distributed is only $237.60, and the amount claimed therein is just $237.60, thus plainly demonstrating that tho matter in controversy is not within the limits of our jurisdiction. This want of jurisdiction we are bound to notice.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the cost of the apt>ellant.
Justices Poché and Fenner dissent.