Case Name: ELKINS et al. v. BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF PARISH OF UNION
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1915-04-26
Citations: 138 La. 207
Docket Number: No. 21037
Parties: ELKINS et al. v. BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF PARISH OF UNION.
Judges: PROYOSTY, J., dissents, adhering to the original opinion.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 207–217

Head Matter:
(70 South. 99)
No. 21037.
ELKINS et al. v. BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF PARISH OF UNION.
(On Motion to Dismiss, Feb. 8, 1915.
On the Merits, April 26, 1915.
On Rehearing, Nov. 29, 1915.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Courts <&wkey;224 — Louisiana Supreme Court — Jurisdiction.
The provision of the Constitution, extending the appellate jurisdiction of this court to “all cases in which the constitutionality or legality of any tax, toll, or impost, whatever, * * * shall be in contestation,” (Const, art. 85), is subject to no other limitation than is fairly contained in the language quoted, and it applies to a ease involving a special school tax, as to any other tax, the only question being whether the matter in contestation is the constitutionality or legality of the tax, or some other matter.
[Ed. Note. — Por other eases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 4S7, 608, 609, 614, 616, 617; Dec. Dig. <S=a224.]
2. Courts <@=^22íL-Louisiana Court — Jurisdiction.
When parties, having an interest and standing so to do, bring a suit charging that a special tax election was illegally conducted in various ways, which they specify, that the results, as promulgated, are erroneous; and, that, with the correction of the errors and illegalities, the tax would be defeated, and the school board, made defendant, affirms the validity of the election and the tax, the constitutionality and legality of the tax are put in contestation, and the appeal is properly'brought to this court.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 487, 608, 609, 614, 616, 617; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>224.]
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On the Merits.
3. Schools and School Districts <&wkey;103— Taxes — Election.
Under Act No. 256 of 1910, § 3, providing for election notices, a school tax election is not bad because the same document included notice of an election in another district, where there was only one schoolhouse in each district, though the notice declared that the polling places should be the sehoolhouses of the respective school districts.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Cent. Dig. §§ 114, 115, 117, 240-245, 252; Dec. Dig. &wkey;103.]
4. Schools and School Districts <&wkey;103— Special Taxes — Elections.
As school tax elections are held under Act No. 256 of 1910, the fact that a member of the school board was appointed commissioner or clerk does not invalidate the election, Act No. 277 of 1934 making it a criminal offense in primary elections for any state official to act as clerk or commissioner not applying.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Cent. Dig. §§ 114, 115, 117, 240-245, 252; . Dec. Dig. &wkey;103J
On Rehearing.
5. Schools and School Districts <&wkey;103— Tax Elections — List oe Property Taxpayers.
Where, in a school tax election held under authority of Act No. 256 of 1910, it appears that a list of the property taxpayers entitled to vote, with the valuation of each taxpayer’s property, was not furnished to the commissioners of election by the registrar of voters, as required by section 6 of the statute, the illegality in the proceedings renders the tax invalid.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Schools and School Districts, Cent. Dig. §§ 114, 115, 117, 240-245, 252; Dec. Dig. &wkey;103J
Provosty, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Fourth District Court, Parish of Union; J. B. Holstead, Judge.
Action by JohnN. Elkins and others against the Board of School Directors of the Parish of Union. Prom a decree for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
H. B. Warren, Dist. Atty., of Ruston, for appellant. J. B. Crow and H. G. Eields, both of Earmersville, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
MONROE, C. J.
Plaintiffs, as citizens and property holders of school district 34, of Union parish, brought this suit to have declared void a certain special tax election, held in that district, and have the school board enjoined from levying and collecting the tax, and they obtained judgment as prayed for, from which the defendant board appealed. Plaintiffs now move to dismiss the appeal, upon the grounds that the amount involved is less than $2,000, and that the tax is not one imposed, or sought-to be imposed, by a municipal corporation.
The words "municipal corporation" are used in article 85 of the Constitution only in connection with the grant of jurisdiction in cases where the constitutionality or legality of the "fines, forfeitures and penalties" imposed by such corporations are in contestation, and in cases in which the ordinances of such corporations have been declared unconstitutional. The grant of appellate jurisdiction, in all cases in which the "constitutionality or legality of any tax toll, or impost, whatever, shall be in contestation," is subject to no other limitation than is fairly contained in the language quoted, and it applies as well to a school tax as to any other, the only question, in such case, being whether the matter in contest is the constitutionality or legality of the tax, or some other matter. Argyle Planing & Mfg. Co. v. Connely, Sheriff, 125 La. 686, 51 South. 687.
The petition alleges various grounds of illegality in the election, to wit, that the proclamation was published confusedly with another proclamation, relating to a tax in another district; that one of the members of the school board was appointed, by the board, commissioner, or clerk, of the election, and so acted, though he was incompetent, because he could not participate in his own appointment, and could not hold the two offices; that the clerk of court and ex officio registrar of voters, furnished the commissioners with no such list 'of taxpayers entitled to voté, and their assessments, as the law requires, and that the irregular and uncertified list that was furnished contained the names of persons who were not entitled to vote, and omitted the names of some who were, and that persons were thereby precluded from voting who would otherwise have voted against the tax; that the school directors appointed commissioners and clerks who were in favor 'of the tax; that one or more commissioners left the voting place, and a person, or persons, favorable to the tax was, or were, instituted in his or their place or places ; that no voting booths were prepared, and secret voting was impossible; that the election was not opened by the officers at the proper time, or in the manner prescribed by law; that the results of the election, as promulgated, are incorrect; and that, with the count legally and properly made, the tax was defeated; and the petition specifies a number of persons who were allowed to vote property which, as it is alleged, they did not own, or owned only in part, or which was'not in the district, and other persons whose votes were excluded when, as it is alleged, they should have been counted. Defendant excepted and answered, and, affirming the validity of the proceedings, prays that the suit be dismissed, and that there be judgment decreeing the election to have been regular and legal, and to have been carried in favor of the tax."
Without going into the other details, it would seem to be sufficient to say that, if, as alleged, on the one hand, and denied on the other, there were not enough legal votes cast for the tax to carry the election, and the defendant fell into error, in the count, and promulgated a result that was not reached in the manner contemplated, by law, then the tax that it proposes to levy is illegal and unconstitutional, and upon the question of legality and constitutionality vel non the appeal is properly brought to this court.
The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.