Myles Salt Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Iberia & St. Mary Drainage Dist

• Decision Date: 16 March 1914
• Docket Number: 20,143
• Citation: 134 La. 903,64 So. 825
• Parties: MYLES SALT CO. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF IBERIA & ST. MARY DRAINAGE DIST
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

64 So. 825

134 La. 903

MYLES SALT CO. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF IBERIA & ST. MARY DRAINAGE DIST

No. 20,143

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 16, 1914

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A property owner, whose property has been included within a drainage district, cannot, without alleging fraud in the formation of the district, maintain a suit to have the district set aside on the mere allegation that his property will not be benefited by the expenditure of the drainage district tax fund, to which he is made to contribute.

Burke Burke & Smith, of New Iberia, and Farrar, Jonas, Goldsborough & Goldberg, of New Orleans (Edgar H. Farrar and Richard F. Goldsborough, both of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellant.

L. T. Dulany, of New Iberia, for appellee.

PROVOSTY, J., absent on account of illness, takes no part.

OPINION

BREAUX, C. J.

This action was brought by plaintiff, the owner of property surnamed Island, for a judgment annulling and setting aside an ad valorem tax of five mills for 50 years. The record consists of a petition by plaintiff and an exception of no cause of action by defendants, in which defendants set forth in detail the different grounds upon which they rest their defense.

The grounds of plaintiff, as set forth in its petition, are, substantially, that the defendant drainage district was organized years ago to drain the lowlands between the Island of plaintiff and the Teche Bayou; that, in forming the district there were lateral lines running not very far from plaintiff's property that were made to deflect at right angle, so as to include the Island of plaintiff.

It is a well-known fact that the formation of the five islands following a cordon along the western boundary is a distinct formation from that of the surrounding country. The islands are high while the marshes and marais, as the name indicates, are low. They are distinct, except as they form part of the landscape; one assisting in developing the picturesqueness of the other.

Along the marshes, people have dwelt for many years who seek to drain the low places.

It is clearly alleged in plaintiff's petition that its property is not in any degree advantaged or benefited by the drainage district. Plaintiff charged: That the only purpose in extending the lines around its property, after having deflected for a considerable distance from the direct course, was solely for the benefit of the lowlands, and not with a view of adopting a general plan of drainage for the benefit of all the other property owners. That the purpose was to obtain a large revenue without once thinking that any part of this revenue would be expended for the drainage of the Island. That an ad valorem tax of five mills for 40 years is too much of a burden upon the property without giving one thought to the drainage in so far as it was concerned.

That plaintiff and others could not do otherwise than protest against the imposition of the tax and the issuance of the bonds which the drainage district proposed to issue.

That defendants did not have even a negligible concern in plaintiff's drainage; in fact, that plaintiff did not need drainage, because the water flows down the slopes of the Island to the neighboring waters without the least aid. That plaintiff's property is the most valuable and the highest assessed of all the property in the district. That it has never received a cent of benefit from the drainage district and never will. That only the lands of others will be benefited. That all of these plans and projects for part of the part are unconstitutional, and a usurpation of authority, and an attempt to take petitioner's property without due process of law, in...