McCall v. Blouin
| Decision Date | 14 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | 13,908 |
| Citation | 18 La.App. 717,138 So. 528 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | McCALL v. BLOUIN ET AL |
Rehearing Refused January 11, 1932.
Writs of Certiorari and Review Refused by Supreme Court February 29, 1932.
Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans Division "B." Hon. Mark M. Boatner, Judge.
Action by William J. McCall against Mrs. Augusta Blouin et al.
There was judgment for defendants and plaintiff appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
Fred G Veith, of New Orleans, attorney for plaintiff, appellant.
Michel Provosty, Francis P. Burns and George D. Lehy, of New Orleans, attorneys for City of New Orleans, defendant appellee.
Ben Washastrom, of New Orleans, curator ad hoc, for other defendants, appellees.
This is a suit to confirm a tax title to three pieces of property of which the plaintiff, Wm. J. McCall, claims to be the owner. The several items are described in article 1 of plaintiff's petition. Subsequent to the institution of the suit, by agreements embodied in judgments, two of the three items were removed from this controversy, leaving only the property described in subparagraph (a) of the petition, consisting of two lots of ground in the Third district, numbered 12 and 24 in square 34, bounded by Prosper, Louisa, Solidelle and Piety streets.
Plaintiff claims to be the owner of these two lots by virtue of an act, under private signature, dated December 9, 1929, whereby the property was conveyed to him by the Third District Land Company. The Third District Land Company acquired the property by purchase, at a tax sale, by the city of New Orleans for taxes for the year 1924, the property being assessed in the name of F. J. Kiermey, and the notarial act evidencing said sale dated April 5, 1926, and registered in C. O. B. Book No. 412, folio 188.
The suit was originally brought against a number of former owners, including some unknown, represented in this proceeding by a curator ad hoc, and subsequently, by supplemental petition, the city of New Orleans was joined as party defendant, plaintiff alleging that the property had been adjudicated to the city on April 15, 1915, for delinquent taxes for the year 1912, and assessed in the name of F. J. Kiermey, and registered in C. O. B. Book No. 271, folio 450. The city answered claiming title to the property under the adjudication of April 15, 1915.
There was judgment below in favor of each defendant rejecting plaintiff's demand. Plaintiff has appealed.
The first point to be considered is the effect of the tax sale of April 5, 1926, under which plaintiff claims title in view of the adjudication to the city of New Orleans of April 15, 1915. In other words, did the action of the city of New Orleans in assessing and selling the property for the taxes of 1924 operate as an estoppel against it and preclude it from claiming under the adjudication to it in 1915?
The provisions of the Constitution, with reference to the collection of state taxes and tax sales, apply to municipal taxes. Article 243 of the Constitution of 1898 and section 14 of article 10 of the Constitution of 1921.
Section 53 of Act No. 170 of 1898, as amended by Act No. 235 of 1928, among other things, provides:
"The tax collector is hereby authorized to bid in said property for the State and shall not readvertise for sale said property or properties so adjudicated to the State, unless the same has been redeemed."
Section 61 of Act No. 170 of 1898, as amended by Act No. 315 of 1910 provides:
"That after property has been adjudicated to the State in default of a bidder, as provided in section 53, the same shall be continued to be assessed in the name of the person to whom it belonged at the date of the sale until the lapse of one year from date of recording the Act of Sale to the State, but the Tax Collector shall not sell the same under the assessment and no tax shall be collected or received thereon by the Tax Collector of or from the former owner while said property remains in a condition of forfeiture to the State and said continued assessment or any erroneous assessment to the former owner thereafter made and no error of the tax collector in receiving taxes under said continuous assessment or other erroneous assessment and non-continued possession of said property by said former owner shall ever be considered or construed by any court of this State as an estoppel of the State from claiming said property or as affecting in any way the title of the State to said property or its rights to possession thereof."
Section 62 of Act No. 170 of 1898, as amended by Act No. 315 of 1910, sec. 6, and Act No. 41 of 1912 and Act No. 72 of 1928, provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Chapman
... ... which throws light on this question is reflected from the ... denial by it of a writ in McCall v. Blouin et al., ... 18 La.App. 717, 138 So. 528, 529. In that case, Judge ... Westerfield, as the court's organ, said:"It thus ... appears that ... ...
-
Johnson v. Chapman
...has never been thought that the Pitre Case was overruled in so far as the major point there involved is concerned. In McCall v. Blouin et al., 18 La.App. 717, 138 So. 528 (Orleans Court), plaintiff claimed to be the owner of properties in the City of New Orleans, which he had purchased from......
-
Third District Land Co., Limited v. Toka
... ... absentee or former owner represented. See In re Quaker ... Realty Company, 122 La. 43, 47 So. 369; McCall v ... Blouin et al., 18 La.App. 717, 138 So. 528. We have ... heretofore pointed out that a change in the Constitution ... relative to tax titles ... ...