Godchaux Co., Inc. v. Estopinal

• Decision Date: 03 January 1918
• Docket Number: 22637
• Citation: 142 La. 812,77 So. 640
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: GODCHAUX CO., Inc., v. ESTOPINAL, Sheriff, et al

77 So. 640

142 La. 812

GODCHAUX CO., Inc., v. ESTOPINAL, Sheriff, et al

No. 22637

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 3, 1918

Rehearing Denied February 7, 1918

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A suit seeking to annul, set aside, and avoid an acreage tax levied for drainage purposes, and which has been funded into negotiable bonds, and without which the payment of such bonds cannot be met, constitutes an attack upon the bonds themselves; and where such bonds have been issued under and by virtue of article 281 of the Constitution, the courts of this state are, by the concluding clause of paragraph 3 of said article, adopted in November, 1914, shorn of all jurisdiction to entertain such suits, when instituted more than 60 days after promulgation of the proceedings evidencing the issuing of said bonds.

Foster Milling, Saal & Milling, of New Orleans, for appellant.

N. H. Nunez, Dist. Atty., of St. Bernard, for appellee Bayou Terre aux Boeufs Drainage Dist.

Wm. Winans Wall, of New Orleans, for other appellees.

OPINION

LECHE, J.

The Godchaux Company, Incorporated, enjoined the sheriff and ex officio tax collector of the parish of St. Bernard from enforcing the collection of a drainage tax, and prays for a decree against said tax collector and the Bayou Terre aux Boeufs drainage district, declaring said tax illegal, null, and void. From a judgment dissolving said injunction and refusing the relief prayed for, plaintiff then took the present appeal.

The facts are that the Godchaux Company owns the 'Contreras' plantation which is situated in the parish of St. Bernard and within the limits of the Bayou Terre aux Boeufs drainage district. A bayou, which at some time in the past has been a running stream, but which had become dry as sediment filled and raised the bottom of it, called the Bayou Terre aux Boeufs, runs through and divides the said Contreras plantation. The lands along the banks of the said bayou are comparatively high, but slope down towards the rear of the plantation, where they become marsh or prairie lands, practically level with the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

Some years ago, with a view of dredging the Bayou Terre aux Boeufs and of establishing and building a system of drainage for all the lands situated in the surrounding country and including the plaintiff's plantation, the Bayou Terre aux Boeufs drainage district was, pursuant to the laws of this state, chartered and organized.

Several special elections were held, and, in accordance with the vote of a majority in amount and number of the property taxpayers qualified to vote under the Constitution and laws of the state, an ad valorem tax of 5 mills and two acreage taxes, one of 6 cents and another of 3 cents, were levied and assessed against all the property within the drainage district. On August 28, 1912, another election was held, ratifying the former levies of a 5-mill ad valorem tax and the 6 and 3 cents acreage taxes, and also levying an additional acreage tax of 16 cents per acre on all the lands situated within the drainage district. Thereupon these taxes were funded into bonds, in the sum of $ 500,000, all of which, except $ 40,000, have been sold, and the proceeds were spent in carrying out the system of drainage inaugurated by the board of commissioners of the drainage district.

Plaintiff does not contest the legality or validity of the ad valorem tax nor of the 6 and 3 cents acreage taxes. It contends that it is not liable for the 16 cents acreage tax, for the reason that said tax was levied without proper authority, and, in the alternative, in case the court should hold that there was authority for the levy of said tax, it contends that its marsh lands, forming part of the Contreras plantation, amounting to 3,635.52 acres, which are not subject to gravity drainage, have not been and will not be benefited by the payment of said tax, and, if compelled to pay the same, it will be deprived of its property without due process of law and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It is admitted that the 16 cents per acre acreage tax was levied annually, and that it was paid by plaintiff for the years 1912, 1913, and 1914, and it appears from the record that the present proceeding to annul and avoid said tax and to enjoin its collection was only filed on May 29, 1916. The record also contains evidence, introduced, however, over the objection of defendants, that there are approximately 565 acres of land on the Contreras plantation subject to gravity drainage, and that the rest of said plantation, consisting of 3,635.52 acres mostly marsh, cannot be drained by gravity.

Against this demand various defenses were made, only one of which we propose to discuss, as we believe the fundamental law of the state places it beyond the power of the court to grant the relief prayed for by plaintiff.

The second and last clause of paragraph 3 of article 281 of the Constitution, provides that:

'All bonds heretofore issued under and by virtue of this article 281 of the Constitution by the governing authority of any subdivision [which is elsewhere defined as including a drainage district] which have heretofore not been declared invalid by a judgment of a...