Case Name: C. H. Parker, State Tax Collector, First District, Parish of Orleans, vs. Strauss & Co.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1897-05-10
Citations: 49 La. Ann. 1173
Docket Number: No. 12,411
Parties: C. H. Parker, State Tax Collector, First District, Parish of Orleans, vs. Strauss & Co.
Judges: Nicholls, C. J., absent; ill.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 1173–1176

Head Matter:
No. 12,411.
C. H. Parker, State Tax Collector, First District, Parish of Orleans, vs. Strauss & Co.
1. The suit for State taxes met by the defence that defendant has no property liable to taxation under the law, substantially puts at issue the legality of the tax, a question within our jurisdiction irrespective of the amount involved. Constitution, Art. 81.
2. Our revenue statute taxes the personal property within the State owned by the non-resident. Act No. 106 of 1890, See. 1.
3. Nor is such property consisting of cash exempted from taxation merely and only because deposited in bank by which it is claimed; the property is to be deemed a debt due by the bank to the non-resident, and hence not taxable here.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. King, J.
F. G. Zacharie for Plaintiff, Appellant.
H. Heidenhain and ■ DinJcelspiel & Hart for Defendants, Appellees.
Argued and submitted April 15, 1897.
Opinion handed down May 10, 1897.
Rehearing refused June 28, 1897.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court on motion to dismiss was delivered by
Miller, J.
The defendants move to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the amount is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction, and the record does not show that the constitutionality or legality of the tax claim is involved.
The record shows that the tax collector, proceeding by rule to compel the delivery of personal property assessed for taxes, is met by the defence that defendants in rule have no property within the jurisdiction of the court liable to taxation. We think this answer substantially puts at issue the legality of the tax and this appreciation of the- defence is confirmed by the argument of defendants against the right of the State to tax the personal property of defendants, because the property is on deposit in the bank.
We see no ground to dismiss the appeal.