Case Name: State of Louisiana v. S. W. Edgar
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1874-11
Citations: 26 La. Ann. 726
Docket Number: No. 4944
Parties: State of Louisiana v. S. W. Edgar.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
No. 4944.
State of Louisiana v. S. W. Edgar.
This suit having been brought in October, 1873, and the judgment rendered on the second October following, it was an error to allow a penalty, because until the fifteenth of December, 1873, the defendant was not a delinquent taxpayer for the year 1872.
That the defendant’s property was not accurately described on the tax roll, is no reason why he should except to the suit, or escape the payment of his taxes to i he State. The court a qua. did not err in treating his exception as an answer and proceeding with the trial.
The judge a. quo erred when he permitted a witness at the trial to prove the contents oí the tax roll in regard to the assessment of defendant’s property, because the roll itself* was the best evidence o: the tax due by defendant.
APPEAL from the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans. Baw1tins J.
A. F. field, Attorney General, F. If. Butler, for plaintiff and appellee. L. F. Bimonds, lor defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Wyly J.
The defendant, who was sued for $752 50, the amount of his State taxes for 1872, appeals from the judgment condemning him to pay said amount, with five per cent attorney's fees and twenty-five per cent, per annum penalties, from fifteenth December, 1871.
The suit was brought in October, 1873, and the judgment was rendered on the second December following. It was therefore an error to allow a penalty, because until the fifteenth December, 1873, the defendant was not a delinquent taxpayer for the year 1872.
Because the defendant's property was not accurately described on the tax roll is no reason wliv he should except to the suit or escape the payment of his taxes to the State. We think the court did not err in treating his exception as an answer and proceeding with the trial.
There was error, however, when the court permitted a witness at the trial i-o prove the contents of the tax roll in regard to tlie assessment of defendant's property, because the roll itself was the best evidence of the tax due by defendant.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment, herein be annulled, and that this cause he remanded for new trial, and to be proceeded in according to law, appellee paying costs of appeal.
Rehearing refused.