State v. Alden Mills
Decision Date | 11 May 1942 |
Docket Number | 17772. |
Citation | 8 So.2d 98 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | STATE v. ALDEN MILLS. |
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1942.
Writ of Certiorari Granted July 20, 1942.
Joseph F. Deynoodt and Stephen B. Rodi, both of New Orleans, for appellant.
Henriques & Mayo, of New Orleans, for appellee.
On December 8th, 1941, the State of Louisiana brought this summary proceeding against the Alden Mills for the purpose of collecting from that corporation additional franchise taxes claimed to be due for the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937, together with penalties, attorney's fees and costs. The respondent corporation for answer to the rule specially pleaded the prescription of three years as fixed by the constitutional amendment to Section 19 of Article XIX of the Constitution of 1921, which amendment, as Act 35 of 1938, was approved by the people of the State on November 8th, 1938. The respondent in its return and in the alternative that the plea of prescription should be overruled, denied that any further amounts were due to the State as additional franchise taxes for the years set forth.
There was judgment maintaining the plea of prescription and dismissing the rule, and the State has appealed.
Section 19 of Article XIX of the Constitution, as amended in 1938, reads as follows:
Prior to the adoption of that amendment there was, under the laws of Louisiana, no prescription applicable to the claim of the State for corporation franchise taxes.
It is the contention of the respondent corporation that the amendment should be given retrospective effect, and that as a result it should be held that all of the claims asserted by the state are barred by the three-year prescription established by the amendment, whereas the State maintains that the amendment should be given only prospective effect and that the collection of those taxes which became due long prior to the adoption of the amendment should not be barred until the expiration of three years from the effective date of the amendment.
There are certain fundamental principles which are involved but concerning which, in spite of lengthy oral argument and in spite of the voluminous briefs, are not in reality in dispute. In the first place, there is a general rule concerning the question of whether statutes in general should be given retrospective effect and, of course, the rule is that such effect should not be accorded them. Our Civil Code so provides in Article 8:
"A law can prescribe only for the future; it can have no retrospective operation, nor can it impair the obligation of contracts."
This principle is so well recognized that no citation of authority is necessary. It is also well recognized, however, that if there is not involved the impairment of the obligation of a contract or the divestiture of vested rights, a statute may operate retrospectively if it is so worded that it is clear that its framers so intended; but the presumption, in general, that laws are intended to operate only prospectively is so strong that clear and unambiguous language is required to overcome it. In City of New Orleans v. Julien Vergnole, 33 La. Ann. 35, our Supreme Court quoted with approval the following from the well known Mr. Wade, a writer on the subject, "Retroactive Laws":
This rule or rather this exception to the effect that statutes or constitutional provisions may operate retrospectively where the language clearly indicates that such was intended is also so well established as to require no further citation.
But the principles which we have so far discussed apply only to statutes or constitutional provisions affecting substantive rights and have no application where there is involved what is known as a remedial statute or provision which affects not the substantive rights of the parties but only the remedy or remedies which are to be availed of or resorted to in the enforcement of those rights. It is the general rule that where such remedial statutes or provisions are involved, unless a contrary intention is evidenced by the language employed, retrospective effect should be given. This, however, has not universally been held to apply to statutes changing periods of limitation--
"On the contrary, in most jurisdictions statutes of limitation are construed as prospective and not retrospective in their operation, in the absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary, and the presumption is against any intent on the part of the legislature to make such a statute retroactive. * * *" American Jurisprudence, Vol. 34, Verbo Limitation of Actions, � 43.
However in some jurisdictions it is held that statutes involving limitations are purely remedial and that therefore they should be given retrospective effect unless their language clearly indicates the contrary intention. For instance, in the same volume and section from which we have just quoted appears the following:
"However, some courts take the view that since limitation laws apply only to the remedy, they are not within the principle that statutes should be given a prospective rather than a retrospective construction, and therefore that they should be construed as retrospective unless they contain language clearly limiting their application to causes of action arising in the future. * * *"
This view that remedial statutes are to be given retrospective effect unless the language used indicates that the lawmakers did not so intend and the further view that statutes fixing prescriptive periods are remedial seem to be well established in this state. In Paulsen v. Reinecke, 181 La. 917, 160 So. 629, 630, 97 A.L.R. 1184, our Supreme Court said:
See, also, Geddes & Moss Undertaking & Embalming Co., Ltd., v. First National Life Insurance Co., 189 La. 891, 901, 181 So. 436; Stallings v. Stallings, 177 La. 488, 148 So. 687; Landry v. Grace, 167 La. 1042, 120 So. 770; Dunning v. West, 51 La.Ann. 618, 25 So. 306; Whittington v. Payne, 151 La. 595, 92 So. 128, and Shreveport Long Leaf Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 195 La. 814, 197 So. 566.
In Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. 122, 207, 4 Wheat. 122, 4 L.Ed. 529, the Supreme Court of the United States said:
"Statutes of limitations relate to the remedies which are furnished in the courts. * * *"
Mr. Sutherland, in his work on statutory construction, Vol. 2, second edition, Section 674, says:
The principle that "prescription" affects the remedy seems to be well established here. See footnote 1932 Edition Dart's Louisiana Code of Practice-Art. 13, pages 7 and 8:
"Remedies are controlled by the laws of the state where the remedy is sought; prescription is a question affecting the remedy prescription, then, is governed by the lex fori, and not the lex loci contractus, Union Cotton Manufactory v. Lobdell, 7 Mart., N.S., 108; Erwin v. Lowry, 2 La. Ann. 314, 46 Am.Dec. 545; Newman v. Goza, 2 La.Ann. 642; Lacoste v. Benton, 3 La.Ann. 220; Brown v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Talbot v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co.
...Life Ins. Co., La.App., 177 So. 818, affirmed 189 La. 891, 181 So. 436; State v. Spence & Goldstein, La.App., 6 So.2d 102; State v. Alden Mills, La.App., 8 So.2d 98, annulled 202 La. 416, 12 So.2d 204; Jackson v. McEacharn, La.App., 50 So.2d 27; Fouchaux v. Board of Com'rs of Port of New Or......
-
State v. Alden Mills
...dismissed the suit, but the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, overruled the plea of prescription, and remanded the case. State v. Alden Mills, 8 So.2d 98. The defendant obtained writ of review. The constitutional provision on which the plea of prescription is founded was added as a pro......
-
Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Ass'n v. Guglielmo, 9276
...prospective in effect, not retroactive. State ex rel. Tulane Homestead Association v. Montgomery, 185 La. 777, 171 So. 28; State v. Alden Mills, La.App., 8 So.2d 98. If the language used by the legislature does not clearly show intent that a statute should have retroactive effect, the statu......
-
Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Anderson
...and transactions which occurred prior to the date of the passage of the ordinance or the execution of the bond. See State v. Alden Mills, La.App., 8 So.2d 98; Ex parte Norton, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 21 S.W.2d Counsel for the parties cite no decision of this court or the Court of Appeals, nor ha......