Court Opinion

ID: 7196023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 17:02:43.362101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:16:20.546982
License: Public Domain

On Application por a Rehearing.
Breaux, J.
The defendant in his application for a rehearing directs attention to the fact that the plaintiffs averred in their petition that prior to the institution of the suit the defendant informed them that he would not surrender the property sued for, nor cancel the sale from the auditor to him, upon payment by them to him of the sum paid by him to the auditor as the purchase price •of the property.
He adds that this allegation was put at issue by his general denial and that no evidence was introduced by plaintiffs in support of their allegation.
The price paid was............................................................................................... $98 BO
Ten per cent.......................................:.................................................................. 9 85
Total....................................................................................................................$108 43
That this amount should be reimbursed and that plaintiffs should be required to pay this amount as a condition precedent to the annulling of the tax deed.
In the answer of the defendant to plaintiffs’ petition he avers that he purchased the property involved in the suit from the auditor, and in support of his defence he introduced a copy of this act of sale.
The purpose was in thus introducing this act to prove title.
The issue by the pleadings' was limited to a question of title of the defendant vel non.
No plea was made with the view, of recovering the taxes paid in the event that the tax deed failed to sustain ownership in the defendant.
There was no want of tender averred and no plea whatever looking to the return of the money paid as made to appear by the tax deed.
The court therefore did not pass upon an issue not made.
This court has repeatedly held that the rights, such as those now claimed, may be pleaded in reconvention.
In the present condition of this suit, it is not possible to deter*226mine whether the taxes paid are taxes which the plaintiffs should reimburse.
The records do not disclose that they were the only taxes paid upon the property during the time for which the alleged payment was made, or that they are taxes for the payment of which the owner is responsible.
We would have no authority to recall and annul judgments rendered contradictorily, on the ground that plaintiff should have made a tender of the amount of taxes paid for the reason we have already given — that no plea of the want of tender has been made.
And no proof had been admitted to show that the taxes were taxes for which the plaintiff was responsible.
To be more explicit on this point, if the taxes, though assessed in the name of a third person not the owner, were the only taxes assessed on the property and the State received the amount as taxes due on the property (and no other taxes were assessed and paid), the property would have received a benefit for which the owner should account, although the tax deed was not valid.
We have not the facts before us to determine if such was the case in matter of the property in controversy in this suit.
The defendant’s rights for taxes paid, whatever they may be, will be protected by reserving to him his right to sue for reimbursement for any amount he may have paid on account of taxes against the property enuring to the benefit of the plaintiffs.
This reservation having been made, our previous decree remains and rehearing is refused.