Case Name: F. B. WILLIAMS CYPRESS Co., Limited, et al. v. POLICE JURY ST. MARTIN PARISH et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1911-06-26
Citations: 129 La. 267
Docket Number: No. 18,456
Parties: F. B. WILLIAMS CYPRESS Co., Limited, et al. v. POLICE JURY ST. MARTIN PARISH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 267–269

Head Matter:
(55 South. 878.)
No. 18,456.
F. B. WILLIAMS CYPRESS Co., Limited, et al. v. POLICE JURY ST. MARTIN PARISH et al.
(June 26, 1911.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Parishes — Special Taxes — Levy and Collection.
Proceedings to authorize, levy, and collect special taxes are proceedings in invitum, to compel the owners of property to pay whether they are willing or not, and, as that can be done only by virtue of the law, it follows that if those who seek to apply the compulsion go outside of the law, or fail to keep in its track, they place themselves in the positions of sheriffs, without writs, and, in legal contemplation, have no power of compulsion whatever.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Counties, Dec. Dig. § 192.*]
2. Parishes — Special Taxes — Elections— Validity — “Under the General Election Laws.”
Act No. 131 of 1898, as amended by Acts Nos. 174, 178, of 1902, and 145 of 1904, provides that elections for the authorizing of special taxes, under article 232 of the Constitution, shall be held “under the general election laws” of the state, meaning that they shall be held in the manner and according to rules prescribed by those laws; and, where such an election is held outside and in contravention of those laws, it accomplishes no legal result.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Counties, Dec. Dig. § 192.*]
Appeal from Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Martin; James Simon, Judge.
Action by the F. B. Williams Cypress Company, Limited, and others, against the Police Jury St. Martin Parish and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
F. E. Delahoussaye, E. Vuillemot, and Martin & Martin, for appellants. Voorhies & Voorhies, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
MONROE, J.-
Plaintiffs are three lumber companies, owning property in the second ward of the parish of St. Martin, but domiciled in neighboring parishes, and they are here as appellees from a judgment enjoining the levying and collecting of a special tax, said to have been voted by a few (13) of the other property taxpayers of the ward, for the dredging of a navigation canal through parts of the first and third wards of the parish.
They move to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that appellants allowed the greater part of the 60 days, granted for its return to this court, to elapse before instructing the clerk to prepare the transcript, and then obtained an order granting an extension of the delay, upon the allegation that there was not sufficient time for him to do so, which, say the counsel for the appellees, was true, but was the fault of the appellants, who should not have been allowed the extension, and whose appeal should now be dismissed. The police jury is the main appellant, and, as its mind consists of parts, which it may have had some difficulty in collecting, from different sections of the parish, we think some allowance should be made for it, particularly as the appellees have not been prejudiced in any way, and as we propose to affirm the judgment appealed from. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.