Case Name: The State of Louisiana ex rel. John C. Golding et als. v. James Graham, Auditor
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1871-11
Citations: 23 La. Ann. 780
Docket Number: No. 3502
Parties: The State of Louisiana ex rel. John C. Golding et als. v. James Graham, Auditor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 780–780

Head Matter:
No. 3502.
The State of Louisiana ex rel. John C. Golding et als. v. James Graham, Auditor.
The Board of Assessors for tlie year 1807, who were removed from office before the one per cent, tax was levied by the General Assembly of 1868, have no right or claim to the per cent, allowed them as assessors, on the ground that their successors used the assessment rolls prepared by them in assessing the one per cent, tax of 1868. The suit against the Auditor to compel him to warrant on the treasury for such a demand was held to be vexatious.
APPEAL from the Eighth District Court, parish of Orleans.
Dibble, J. John M. Cooney and B. 8. Dennie, for relators, appellees.
Ilornor & Benedict, for Auditor, appellant

Opinion:
Ludeling, C. J.
The relators were members of the Board of Assessors for the parish of Orleans in the year 1867. They aver that by the provisions of act No. 55, of the General Assembly of 1865, their compensation was fixed at three per centum on the amount of taxes on property, gross receipts, etc., and they claim that they are entitled to receive the same per centage upon the one per cent, tax levied by the act No. 114 of the General Assembly, approved twenty-ninth September, 1868, as the tax rolls of 1867 were used as the basis of this tax. They claim $44,076 44.
The evidence shows that the relators were removed from office on or about the seventeenth of July, 1868, months before the one per cent, tax was levied by the General Assembly. According to the theory of the relators, if the Legislature which is to convene next month should see fit to adopt the assessment of last year as a basis for levying the taxes for the current year, the assessors who made that assessment, who have been paid already for making it, would be entitled to be paid again. The proposition is preposterous. The suit is frivolous and vexatious, and we regret we have not the power to mulct the relators in damages.
It is ordered that the judgment of the court a qua be avoided and reversed, and there be judgment in favor of the defendant rejecting plaintiffs' demand, with costs of both courts.