Case Name: GOMEZ v. WILDE. In re RIDDELL
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-11-17
Citations: 135 La. 204
Docket Number: No. 20,117
Parties: GOMEZ v. WILDE. In re RIDDELL.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., takes no part.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 204–208

Head Matter:
(65 South. 109)
No. 20,117.
GOMEZ v. WILDE. In re RIDDELL.
(Nov. 17, 1913.
On Rehearing, May 11, 1914.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Taxation (§ 734*) — Assessment — Certainty.
A tax assessment and sale of lot No. 14 in a certain square are void for uncertainty, where no such numbered lot appears on any map or plan of the square, or can be located thereon by reference to title deeds or other competent evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1408, 1470-1473; Dec. Dig. § 734.*]
On Rehearing.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
2. Taxation (§ 814*) — Annulment oe Tax Sale — Condition Precedent — Payment.
A judgment annulling a tax sale is ineffective until the price and all taxes and costs paid, with 10 per cent, interest, has been paid to the purchaser, as required by Const, art. 233, though such payment has not been prayed for by defendant; this constitutional provision being imperative.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1612, 1613; Dec. Dig. § 814.*]
Action by William Gomez against R.' D. Wilde. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and P. G. Riddell, owner of the rights of defendant, applies for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
Dinkelspiel, Hart & Davey, of New Orleans, for relator. Emile Pomes, of New Orleans, for respondent.

Opinion:
LAND, J.
The case is thus stated by the Court of Appeal:
"The plaintiff acquired certain lots of ground in this city by purchase from the Succession of St.' Romes at a judicial sale in January, 1900, and has been in physical possession of the property continuously since. From that time to the present the property has been assessed in his name, and he has paid all the taxes due thereon."
"The purpose of this suit is to cancel as null and void tax sales made by the tax collector to Englebach and Panghaff, on the grounds that the assessments were erroneous, and that the description of the property in the assessment and tax sale does not identify it with plaintiff's property."
"According to the act of sale by the Succession of St. Romes to the plaintiff and a plan of Pilie in the record, the plaintiff's property consists of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in square No. 629, bounded by Laharpe, Villere, Columbus, and Robertson streets, measuring in the aggregate about 141 feet front on Laharpe street."
"The description in the tax deeds were under assessments in 1896 and 1899, and are 'a certain lot of ground in the third district of the city of New Orleans designated as lot No. 14 in square No. 626 bounded by Laharpe, Columbus, Villere, and Robertson streets, and measuring 96 feet front on Laharpe street by 66 feet in depth.'
"The property conveyed by the tax deed is not the one in suit, and the discrepancy in the two descriptions is so great as to exclude the theory of any possible connection between the two."
"It is not merely an insufficient and incorrect description, but one absolutely unidentifying and uneffective to oust plaintiff from the property claimed by him."
"A plea of estoppel has been filed to the effect that the plaintiff, having paid taxes under the description in the tax deed, cannot now claim that it was insufficient to identify the property."
"No copies of the assessment rolls were offered to prove this, and the tax bills paid show the correct measurements according to plaintiff's deeds."
"But, going a step further, we do not find that the defendants were induced to act to their detriment by plaintiff's conduct, and this is necessary to afford a basis for estoppel. We are not prepared to say that a payment of a tax made in 1900 or 1901 can cure an invalidity in 1896 and 1899, before the taxpayer acquired it; had the payment preceded the tax sale, the results might have been different."
There is no map or plan in the record calling for lot 14 in the square bounded by Laharpe, Columbus, Villere, and Robertson streets. The plat in the record made by Pilie shows only lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. It follows that the descriptions in the tax deeds in question do not identify any particular portion of said square.
After the purchase of the four lots by the plaintiff, the assessors did not assess them, but continued to assess lot 14, so called. In the first assessment no area is given, and in others the area varies. There is no evidence that plaintiff, is responsible for these misdescriptions.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the Court of Appeal be affirmed, with costs.