Holland's Heirs v. Southern States Land & Timber Co
| Citation | 124 La. 406,50 So. 436 |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1909 |
| Docket Number | 17,493 |
| Parties | HOLLAND'S HEIRS v. SOUTHERN STATES LAND & TIMBER CO |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied October 18, 1909.
Appeal from Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Carroll F. X. Ransdell, Judge.
Action by the heirs of J. C. Holland against the Southern States Land & Timber Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Davis & Browne, for appellants.
Snyder & Gilfoil and Saunders, Dufour & Dufour, for appellee.
This suit was filed in January, 1908, by the heirs of Jackson C. Holland, who died in 1866, to annul two tax adjudications of certain lands to the state of Louisiana, one of date November 4, 1873, and the other of date May 16, 1896, and to recover said property as owners.
The defendant is alleged to be in possession of said lands as owners, through mesne conveyances extending back to said Jackson B. Holland, and to claim title through said purported tax sales and tax deeds.
The petition alleges that said land is and always has been woodland and unoccupied, except that a considerable portion of the same was deadened in 1860 by said Holland, and is now worth the sum of $ 20,000.
The petition avers in general terms that both of said tax sales were illegal, invalid, and absolutely void for want of valid assessments, advertisements, and notices, and that the purported tax deeds were not translative of property, and were not made in compliance with the requirements of the revenue acts under which said sales were attempted to be made.
The tax sale of 1873 is specially assailed on the following grounds:
(1) That said Holland was always a non-resident of the state of Louisiana, and no curator ad hoc was appointed to represent him, as required by the statute.
(2) That said property was sold for the delinquent taxes of the years 1865, 1866, 1870, and 1871, when the lien and privilege for taxes, and the taxes themselves for the years 1865 and 1866, had been prescribed long prior to the date of said tax sale.
(3) That the state taxes for said years did not amount to the sum of $ 422.88, but, as the record show, to only $ 375.
(4) That said property was sold, as shown by the deed, to pay the delinquent taxes for said years amounting to $ 421.88 and to pay damages amounting to $ 357.81, when there was no law in existence authorizing the imposition of any damages, interest, or penalties.
(5) That under Act No. 47, p. 98, of 1873, under which said tax sale purports to have been made, the tax collector could sell only to pay the delinquent taxes and lawful costs.
The tax sale of 1896 is assailed on the following grounds:
(1) That the property was sold for the taxes of 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1895, on an assessment made February 12, 1896, on which day purported supplemental tax rolls for said years were filed, when the law prohibited the collection of back taxes for more than three years.
(2) That the tax and tax lien for 1892 had prescribed long before the filing of the supplemental tax roll.
(3) That said property was sold for taxes and interest amounting to $ 693.33, in which amount was included $ 53.79 of interest and penalties on levee taxes not warranted by law.
(4) That in the total amount were included levee taxes, both ad valorem and acreage, without warrant of law.
(5) That under article 210 of the Constitution of 1879 no valid tax sale could be made for more taxes or interest than were due.
(6) That the attempted sale and assessment of said property in 1896 under instructions of the commissioners of the levee district was a recognition of the title of plaintiff's ancestor, and estopped the taxing authorities and the defendant to claim title under said sale of 1873.
Plaintiffs alleged a willingness to repay the taxes that may have been properly paid on said lands, and prayed for judgment decreeing said tax sales to be null and void, and recognizing them as the lawful owners of the property.
Defendant pleaded the prescription of 5, 10, and 30 years, and the prescription of 3 years under article 233 of the Constitution of 1898.
Defendant further pleaded estoppel against plaintiffs, alleging that their ancestor purchased the property on a credit in 1860, never paid a dollar of the purchase price, never had any actual possession of the property, never paid any taxes thereon, and that he and his heirs for 48 years asserted no claims of ownership to the lands in controversy.
The case was tried on the plea of prescription, and, from a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff has appealed.
J. C. Holland purchased the lands in dispute entirely on a credit from Louis Selby in November, 1860. The mortgage securing the payment of the price was never canceled on the records, in whole or in part, and was reinscribed in 1870. It is not pretended that J. C. Holland, or heirs, have ever paid any taxes on the property. It is admitted that J. C. Holland caused the timber on a part of the lands to be deadened. Holland was an officer in the Confederate army. He died in 1866, and there has never been any administration of his estate.
In 1873 the lands in dispute were adjudicated to the state of Louisiana for taxes due by J. C. Holland on assessment rolls for 1865, 1866, 1870, and 1871, subject to redemption by the owners or any creditor at any time within six months.
In June, 1889, these lands were deeded by the State Auditor to the board of commissioners of the Fifth Louisiana levee district.
On May 16, 1896, the same lands were adjudicated to the state of Louisiana for taxes of 1892, 1893, and 1894, and for taxes of 1895, on assessment against "unknown owner; J. C. Holland, last known owner." This adjudication was made under Act No. 85, p. 111, of 1888, and the deed recites that all the requirements of the statute as to notices, advertisements, etc., were strictly observed.
In November, 1897, the lands so adjudicated were again deeded by the State Auditor to the board of commissioners of the Fifth Louisiana levee district, which in 1900 sold the same to the North Louisiana Land Company. Defendant acquired title in March, 1903, from the assigns of the said purchaser from the levee district. It is admitted that from 1901 to 1908, inclusive, the property has been regularly assessed to the holders of the title derived from the levee board, and all taxes so assessed have been paid by them. It is further admitted that the defendant purchased in good faith, believing that the title was good.
It appears that in July, 1895, the said board of commissioners, being advised that its title to said lands based on the tax adjudication of 1873 was defective, passed a resolution requesting the assessor to place the same on rolls for back taxes for 1892, 1893, and 1894, and for current taxes. Supplemental rolls for each of said years were made out and were actually filed by the clerk of the district court on February 10, 1896. The tax deed of May 16, 1896, recites that said assessment rolls were on file in the office of the tax collector.
The legal presumption is that these rolls were made out by the assessor of the parish pursuant to the request of the board of commissioners and that they were timely deposited in the proper offices. The circumstance that the assessor's name does not appear on the first page, and that the rolls were not indorsed as filed in the clerk's office until February 10, 1896, may have been irregularities, but certainly were not absolute nullities, incurable by prescription. There were tax assessments, and the rolls were filed in the proper offices more than three months before the tax sale.
In Terry v. Heisen, 115 La. 1070, 40 So. 461, this court held that the constitutional prescription of three years validated a tax sale based on an assessment to a person without color of title, and made without notice to the owner. Inter alia, the court said:
"So long, therefore, as the property is actually assessed, whether in the name of one person or another, or in no name, there is an intelligible basis for the levy, and for the sale to enforce the payment of the tax; and if the law, to which alone he can look...
To continue reading
Request your trial