Case Name: Edward C. Palmer vs. Board of Assessors et als. And; Edward C. Palmer vs. Board of Assessors et als. Consolidated
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1890-12
Citations: 42 La. 1122
Docket Number: No. 10,525
Parties: Edward C. Palmer vs. Board of Assessors et als. And Edward C. Palmer vs. Board of Assessors et als. Consolidated.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 1122–1129

Head Matter:
No. 10,525.
Edward C. Palmer vs. Board of Assessors et als. And Edward C. Palmer vs. Board of Assessors et als. Consolidated.
Where tile object of the suit is to cancel tax inscriptions for a number of years, and the plaintiff summarizes ail the assessments, and asks the cancellation for grounds common to all, this is not a cumulation of separate and distinct demands for the purposes of jurisdiction. When the assessments for said years show an amount over $2000, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
IVhere the plaintiff makes the State a defendant in such a proceeding, and asks the cancellation of the inscriptions for taxes due the State, for the same reason as against the city, the State was properly made a party; and if the taxes of city and State amount to over $2000, this court has jurisdiction.
Act 7 of 1875, E. K., had reference to sales for delinquent taxes made after its passage; and did not affect sales of property which had been adjudicated to the State prior to its passage.
Tile plea of payment of taxes admits the validity of the taxes and of the assessments based thereon; and the fact of payment indicates knowledge and ratification of assessments, which bars subsequent question as to their validity.
Assessors are not hound to look beyond recorded titles to property.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
Singleton, Browne & Ghoate for Plaintiff and Appellee:
1. Plaintiff lias been the recorded owner and undisturbed possessor of the property assessed since December 24, 1806. Pages--of Brief, also It., p. 5; Tr. 10,114, pp. 35, 45, 46, 90.
2. The forfeiture to the State, Eebruary 11, 1875, was illegal, because the tax had been tendered and it liad been agreed that the sale should not take place; and it can have no effect because not confirmed by the Auditor. Seepages — — of Brief, also R., pp. 13,14; Tr. 10,114, pp. 39, 40 to 43, 108; Act 47 of 1873, Sec. 9; Act 105 of 1875, Secs. 1 and 3.
3. The sale, by the State, of October 8, 1875, to Eishcl was null to the knowledge of the State, because it was made by her after the tax had been tendered; the previous forfeiture had not been confirmed; the law did not authorize it, and it was made in violation of a prohibitory law. See pages--of Brief, also Act 47 of 1873, Sec. 9; Act 105 of 1875, Secs. 1 and 3; Act No. 7, E. S., of 1875 ; 30 An. 871; 32 An. 228; 34 An. 706; 37 An. 358; C. O. 2453 ; 97 O. S. 105; 16 An. 280; R., p. 19; Tr. 10,114, pp. 39 to 43.
4. Plaintiff is not estopped from attacking Eishel’s alleged title. See pages--of Brief, also Bigelow on Estoppel, 289, 292, 415; 14 Me. 352; 45 Me. 461; 5 Wall. 268; Co. Lit. 52 a.; 4 Greonleaf (Me.) 229; 14 Pick. 482.
5 The recordation of .the quit claim deed from Eishel not material. Seepages — — of Brief; Act 43 of 1871, Sec. 23; Act96 of 1877, See. 12; R. S. 227, 228 ; 30 An. 295, 1272.
6. Kales of November 22, 1883, and .lunc 4, 1885, have no effect in view of paymen of taxes and decisions in suits 14,918,14,947 (10,114, Supreme Couj|t).
7. Act 108 of 1888 was passed after plaintiff’s suit was filed, and can not affect liis rights or his suit. Constitution, Arts. 11, 29, 155, 203. It is unconstitutional, because it violates Article 46. See pages--of Brief.
8. The laws on which the plea of prescription is based do not apply to the case, and can not affect it. See pages--ol Brief; Act 105 of 1874; Act 96 of 1812; Act • 98 of 1886; Act 85 of 1888; 32 An. 912; 34 An. 705.
9. The assessments in question are null and void. Sec page — of Brief; 30 An. 176, 293, 871; 32 An. 912, 924; 35 An. 952,1086 ; 34 An. 107, 407 ; 32 An. 520; 28 An. 537; 19 An. 185.
10.The State and city taxes from 1870 to 1883 have been paid. 11., pp. 6,11,12, IS, 14,16, 23; Tr. 10,114, pp. 28, 30, 48, 49, 52 to 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 78, 109,110,117.
W. B. Sommerville, Assistant City Attorney, and Carleton Hunt, City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants:
1. A tax sale made to the State on I ebruary 11,1875, under Act 47 of 1873, was not affected by Act 7 of 1875, adopted on May S, 1875.
2. Act 7 of 1875, IS. Sj., has reference to the seizures and sales of properties of tax delinquents after its passage, and did not refer to sales of property which had been already adjudicated to tlio State.
3. Act 7 of 1875 has no effect upon the provisions of Act 105 of 1874; they are upon different subjects.
4. A plea of payment of the' taxes admits the validity of the assessments and claims for taxes. It is in the nature of an affirmatory act and ratification. Bane vs. March, 33 An. 554; Carter, Congreve et al. vs. City, 33 An. 816; Reed vs. His Creditors, 39 An. 115; Factors and Traders Insurance Company vs. Bevi, 41 An. —.
5. An assessment in the name of him whose title stands recorded on the public records as owner is a valid assessment.
6. The receiving of a quit claim deed by the original tax debtor from the subsequent purchaser is an admission and ratification of the title of that purchaser.
7. An assessment correctly made is full foundation for the tax and for subsequent proceedings in enforcement of the payment thereof.
Wynne Rogers, Attorney for Tax Collector, and Walter H. Rogers, Attorney General, on the same side.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McEnery, J.
The plaintiff brought suit against the Board of Assessors, the Treasurer of the City of New Orleans and the State Tax Collector, for the purpose of having the assessments against his property situated in the city of New Orleans, from 1870 to 1888, both inclusive, enrolled and canceled, for both city and State taxes.
Subsequently, on the 22d September, 1889, he enjoined the State Tax' Collector ahd the Oity Treasurer from proceeding to sell the property for taxes alleged to be due for the years 1880 to 1883, inclusive, on the ground that they were assessed in the name of another party. These suits were consolidated and tried together. There was judgment for the plaintiff, from which the city and State appealed. .
The plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record does not affirmatively show that the amount in dispute is within the jurisdiction of this court.
The amount of the taxes due the city and State do not appear in the pleadings. But in plaintiff's brief it is stated "that after a careful inspection of the record we have only been able to find the taxes claimed by the State from 1880 to 1883, amounting to $355.67, and those claimed by the city from 1877 to 1884, and from 1886 to 1887, amounting to $1947.60." This appears in the record, and is a matter of proof offered by the plaintiff. But if there were any doubt as to the amount of taxes involved due the city, it is dissipated by the affidavit filed in this court by the Oity Treasurer, showing the amount of taxes due the city alone to be the sum of $2500.40.
This is sufficient to vest this court with jurisdiction. State ex rel. Daboval vs. Police Jury, 39 An. 739.
It is, however, contended by plaintiff that the taxes claimed by the city and State for cash assessment or both together do not exceed $2000, and that the taxes claimed on all the assessments should not be consolidated for the purpose of giving jurisdiction.
There are no separate demands for the cancellation of distinct assessments either for the city or State assessments. There is only one demand for the erasure and cancellation of all .assessments, State and city, which had been inscribed and operated as a mortgage or privilege on his property. The prayer of plaintiff's petition is "that there be judgment in favor of petitioner ordering the cancellation of the assessments of his property as described herein, and ordering the cancellation of all tax inscriptions for State and city taxes from 1870 to 1888, both inclusive, standing of record and uncanceled in the mortgage office of this parish and on the rolls and books in possession of defendant."
The grounds for the cancellation of State and city taxes are identical, and they were made defendants and sued together as hav ing a common interest. There was one cause of action against both. The object of the suit was to compel defendants to cancel certain tax ineriptions against the property of plaintiff. These inscriptions complained of amount to more than $2000. This is the amount in dispute, and this court, therefore, has jurisdiction. Breaux vs. Recorder of Mortgages, 36 An. 742; Pease vs. Police Jury, 34 An. 137; Favrot vs. City of Baton Rouge, 38 An. 280; Reed vs. Creditors, 89 An. 116.
The motion to dismiss is denied.