Case Name: Neuville LeBlanc vs. Mrs. G. G. Blodgett, Testamentary Executrix
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1882-02
Citations: 34 La. 107
Docket Number: No. 8481
Parties: Neuville LeBlanc vs. Mrs. G. G. Blodgett, Testamentary Executrix.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
No. 8481.
Neuville LeBlanc vs. Mrs. G. G. Blodgett, Testamentary Executrix.
A tax sale will be annulled where the pioperty was not assessed in the name of the real owner, but in that of another party, and where no notice of seizure was given to the owner.
APPEAL from the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche. Knobloeh, J.
Clay Knobloeh, for Plaintiff and Appellee:
1. Act 43 of 1873, p. 98, § 1, requires 10 full days’ publication in tax sales — object is to give notice to owner. There must be 10 full days intervening between first and last publications. 31 An 661; 32 An. 228.
2. Tax sale of property assessed in the name of one not the owner, preceded by notices given to party assessed and not to true owner, is absolutely null and void. 32 An.912; ib. 924; 33 An. 520.
3. Plaintiff was not bound to tender to defendant, as a condition precedent to recovery of property in present action. 32 An. 924; 33 An. 520 ; 32 An. 1290.
4. Plea of prescription cannot avail defendant 32 An. 228; ib. 912; 15 An. 15.
5. Defendant, as possessor in bad faith, is not entitled to value of cabins put up by her lessees and made of lumber cut on the land iu dispute. 32 An. 195; 12 An. 545; 24 An. 253; 4 S. 260; C. C. 508, 3452.
A. J3. Philips, for Defendant:
1. The law has been complied with by three insertions within ten (10) days. Act 47 of 1873, p. 101, Sec. 8.
2. Plaintiff was bound to tender to defendant the price paid. 30 A. pp. 175, 310 and 1232.
3. Plea of prescription three (3) and five (5) years. Art. of Constitution of 1868; Act BTo. 105 of Legislature of 1874; 24 A. p. 24.
4. Defendant in good faith is entitled to improvements and taxes. 32 A. 926, 927 and 1290.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by '
Bermudez, C. J.
This is a suit for the nullity of a tax sale. The plaintiff complains that on the 21st of February, 1880, he became the adjiidicatee of the land, under a foreclosure of the mortgage granted to him on the 26th of February, 1874, hy E. E. Lauve, the owner; ' that the title set up thereto by the defendant as the universal legatee and testamentary executrix and widow of Geo. G. Blodgett, hy virtue of a tax adjudication made for $42.88, whereof $33.88, paid by her said husband on the 14th of February, 1874, with other lands, is a nullity; because the property was assessed iu the name of C. J. Florian, who did not own it; because no notice of seizure was served on said Lauve, whose title was of record in the proper book; because no legal notice or advertisement of tlie sale was given or published; because, no taxes were due. '
The defense set up consist in the tax adjudication assailed, and. eventually in a claim for improvements.
Prom a judgment iu favor of plaintiff, the defendant has appealed.
The assessment of the land in the name of C. J. B. Florian, who had ceased to he the owner since 1812, was in- flagrant violation of law. The property liad successively passed to several parties and was Anally acquired by E. E. Lauve, in 1861, when his act of purchase was put on the public record, in conveyance hook 8, No. 6, on September 17th, 1861.
It is well established, on principle and by authorities, that a tax sale of property assessed iu the name of one who is not the owner, without service of any notice of seizure ou the real owner, is an absolute nullity and passes no title. Cooley on Tax, 259, 307; Burroughs 210, 222 ; 32 A. 912, 924; 32 A. 520; 19 A. 185.
This material irregularity suffices to vitiate the sale. We are therefore dispensed from considering the other grounds of nullity urged.
It does not appear that the cabins put up on the land were erected by the defendant at her expense. -It rather seems that they wore constructed by tenants, or occupants under her, and with materials taken from the spot.
She can, therefore, recover neither in her own right, nor in those of said parties. 32 A. 135. But her right, if any she has, to demand a reimbursement of taxes, legally due and paid on the property, should he and are reserved.
Judgment affirmed with costs.