Folse v. Police Jury And School Board of Iberville Parish

• Decision Date: 22 May 1911
• Docket Number: 18,543,Consolidated,18,553
• Citation: Folse v. Police Jury And School Board of Iberville Parish, 55 So. 681, 128 La. 1080 (La. 1911)
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: FOLSE et al. v. POLICE JURY AND SCHOOL BOARD OF IBERVILLE PARISH

55 So. 681

128 La. 1080

FOLSE et al. v. POLICE JURY AND SCHOOL BOARD OF IBERVILLE PARISH

Nos. 18,543, 18,553, Consolidated

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 22, 1911

Appeal from Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville; L. B. Claiborne, Judge.

Action by Lusignan Folse and others against the Police Jury and School Board of Iberville Parish. From the judgment, the School Board appeals. Reversed and rendered.

C. S Hebert, for appellant.

Edward N. Pugh & Son and Walter Lemann, for appellees.

OPINION

MONROE J.

Statement of the Case.

Plaintiffs as taxpayers of the First ward of Iberville parish, brought suit to annul an election held in that ward, and to annul an ordinance, predicated thereon, levying a special tax for school purposes, and they made the police jury, the school board, and the sheriff parties defendant. The defendants filed exceptions of no cause of action and prescription, which were overruled, and the court thereupon rendered judgment, in favor of plaintiffs, decreeing the nullity of the election and of the ordinance levying the tax, and decreeing the unconstitutionality of Act No. 84 of 1906, which plaintiffs had attacked. From the judgment so rendered, the school board alone appealed.

In this court the judgment appealed from was reversed, and plaintiffs' demand, for the annulling of the election, finally rejected, the plea of prescription thereto having been maintained; but, as to the demand for the annulling of the ordinance levying the tax, and the attack upon the act of 1906, the case was remanded for further proceedings. Folse v. Police Jury, 125 La. 618, 51 So. 658.

The school board, then, filed an answer, and, after a trial, there was judgment, dismissing the suit and dissolving an injunction (that plaintiffs had caused to be issued), from which judgment plaintiffs have taken two appeals (which by consent are consolidated); the one, as to the rejection of its demands against the school board, and the other, as to the rejection of its demands against the police jury and the sheriff. Plaintiffs assign, as error, the last action of the district court on their demands against the police jury and the sheriff, alleging that, by reason of the failure of those defendants to appeal from the judgment rendered against them on the previous hearing, they had become concluded, and that they were not before the court when the action complained of was taken. The contention is without merit. The police jury and the sheriff did not appeal from the judgment first rendered, because they were, and are, without interest; but the school board, being the party concerned in the matter, appealed, and the police jury and the sheriff were parties to the appeal, since it was taken by motion, in open court, at the same term, as well as by petition; and, as the school board had the right to have the entire judgment of the district court reviewed and reversed, in all respects in which it operated in its prejudice, it follows that, when it was reversed, it was reversed as to all parties, since which happening no judgment has been rendered against the police jury or the sheriff. Upon the last hearing in the district court, the judge, having the real parties in interest before him, and there being no complaint, so far as we are advised, of want of parties, the case was heard and dismissed, a course which appears to us to have been both competent and proper.

Plaintiffs complain that the taxpayers who voted at the election failed to indorse on their ballots what property was assessed against, and voted by, them; but that was set up as a ground for annulling the election, and they are concluded with regard to it by the judgment, heretofore rendered, to the effect that their attack on the election is barred by prescription.

The next contention is that the ordinance levying the tax is illegal, because it fails to specify the term, or designate the year, or years, for which the tax is levied and to be levied.

We find no sufficient answer to this contention.

The petition of the taxpayers is addressed to the police jury, and reads, in part:

"Respectfully ask what your honorable body, acting within and under the authority conferred on you by article 232 of the Constitution, * * * by Act No. 131 of * * * 1898; by Act No. 214 of * * * 1902; by Act No. 145 of * * * 1904; and by Act No. 167 of * * * 1904; do order a special election * * * for the purpose of determining whether or not a special tax, in excess of the constitutional limitation of taxation, provided by * * * article 232 of the Constitution of 1898, shall be levied. * * *"

The petition then states that the object of the tax is to procure sites and build schoolhouses and do certain other things in the interest of the school system; that the rate of the tax is to be two mills on the dollar of valuation of all taxable property in the ward; and that the period for which the tax shall be levied shall be 20 years, beginning with 1907.

Act No. 131 of 1898 is entitled:

"An act to prescribe the manner in which special elections shall be held in any parish, municipality, ward or school district of this state, for the purpose of levying special taxes for the support of public schools, and * * * to carry into effect article 233 of the Constitution of 1898."

Section 1 provides that, when one-third of the property taxpayers shall petition for the levy of a special tax "for the support of the public schools, * * *" the police jury or municipal authorities shall order a special election and submit to the property taxpayers "the rate of taxation, the number of years it is to be levied and the purposes for which it is intended. * * *"

Section 2 provides that the petition mentioned in section 1 shall be in writing and shall "designate the object and amount of the tax and the number of years during which it shall be levied."

It will be observed that, according to the title, the statute thus quoted was enacted to carry into effect article 233 of the Constitution; whereas, that article relates to a different subject, and the real purpose was to carry into effect article 232. This discrepancy did not at once attract attention; but Act No. 145 of 1904 amends and re-enacts the title, and sections 2 and 5 of Act No. 131 of 1898; the amendment of the title consisting of the substitution of "article 232" for "article 233."

It has heretofore been decided that the police jury was authorized, by a vote of the property taxpayers, to levy a special tax, for school purposes, at the rate of two mills on the dollar, for 20 years, beginning with the year 1907. The manner in which that authority was, and is, to be exercised is prescribed by section 3 of Act No. 131 of 1898, and section 5 of that act, as amended and re-enacted by Act No. 145 of 1904.

Omitting matter which is irrelevant for present purposes, those sections declare that, when a majority of the property taxpayers, in number and amount, voting at the election, vote in favor of such levy:

"Sec. 3. The police jury * * * shall, immediately, pass an ordinance levying such tax, and for such time as may have been specified in the petition, and shall designate the year, in which such taxes shall be levied and collected. * * *"

"Sec. 5. The police jury * * * shall * * * levy and collect, annually, in addition to other taxes, such special tax, at the rate voted by the property taxpayers and during the years designated, upon all the taxable property within the limits of such parish, municipality, ward, or school district, as the case may be, * * * which special taxes, so collected, shall be used for the objects or purposes designated in the petition and none other, and, in case of a special tax voted for the support of a public school or for the purpose of erecting a public schoolhouse, the same shall, from time to time, as collected, be paid to the board of school directors of the parish. * * *"

What the police jury did, in the premises, was to adopt an ordinance (on July 1, 1907, shortly after the election had been held) reading, in part, as follows:

"On motion of O. S. Templet, seconded by J. A. Carville and unanimously carried, a special tax of two mills on the...