Case Name: City or New Orleans vs. L'Hote & Co.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-12
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 1177
Docket Number: No. 8784
Parties: City or New Orleans vs. L’Hote & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 1177–1178

Head Matter:
No. 8784.
City or New Orleans vs. L’Hote & Co.
Where a tax was duly levied on a factory for the manufacture of articles of wood by the City of Kew Orleans, and included in the City budget for 1879, collectible in 1880, an exemption therefor cannot be claimed under Article 207 of the present Constitution, subsequently adopted. That Article had no retroactive effect. The case comes within the scope of the decisions of City vs. Vergnol© and Succession of Hupuy, 33 An. 39 and 258.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
J. Ward (hirleij, Jr. for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Chas. S. Bice for Defendants and Appellants.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered hy
Todd, J.
The defendants are appellants from a judgment condemning them to pay a tax on property described as a factory for the manufacture or making of articles of wood.
It is claimed that the property or factory is exempt from taxation, under Article 207 of the present State Constitution, and this presents the only question for determination, other issues raised hy the pleadings having been abandoned.
The tax in question was levied prior to the adoption of the present State Constitution, being the tax assessed in 1879, to he collected in 1880. When this levy was made the property in' question was clearly subject to taxation, there being then in existence no provision for its exemption, constitutional or legal.
In tlie cases of the City vs. Vergnole, 33 An. 36, and Suc. of Dupuy, 33 An. 258, we held,' after mature deliberation, that the restrictions and limitations, respecting taxes and licenses, which would include also exemptions, established by the Constitution of 1879, had no retroactive effect.
The instant case comes clearly within the scope of those decisions, and the reasons therein given for the conclusions announced are equally applicable to the case before us.
Judgment affirmed.