Taxpayers v. O'Kelly

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BREAUX, J.
• Citation: Taxpayers v. O'Kelly, 49 La. Ann. 1039, 22 So. 311 (La. 1897)
• Decision Date: 14 June 1897
• Docket Number: 12,373
• Parties: TAXPAYERS v. W. A. O'KELLY, TAX COLLECTOR

22 So. 311

49 La.Ann. 1039

TAXPAYERS v. W. A. O'KELLY, TAX COLLECTOR

No. 12,373

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 14, 1897

Argued June 2, 1897

APPEAL from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita. Potts, J.

Stubbs & Russell, for Plaintiffs, Appellants.

C. J Boatner, M. M. Boatner and E. T. Lamkin, for Defendant Appellee.

OPINION

BREAUX J.

A number of the taxpayers of the city of Monroe brought this action to enjoin the city tax collector from collecting a special tax levied in favor of the Houston Central Arkansas & Northern Railroad Company.

The Reynolds & Henry Construction Company, assignees of the railroad company, are the parties in interest as defendants.

Plaintiffs in injunction alleged a number of grounds against the legality of the tax, such as that the petition for the election was not signed by the requisite number of taxpayers; that the commissioners of election did not make a list of the property taxpayers who voted at the election; that no return was made of the election and that no return has ever been announced or promulgated; that the election was not carried by a majority in amount and number; that the railroad company had not earned the tax; that the defendant had agreed to surrender all its rights to the tax, and that they are attempting to extort an amount under the guise of a claim for public work. The defendants excepted to plaintiff's action, controverted each of the grounds set forth, and interposed the plea of res judicata as a complete bar to all complaints alleged by the plaintiffs.

The judge of the District Court sustained the exception and dismissed the suit.

The plaintiffs appeal.

All the questions here raised were expressly passed upon in the different cases in which the Mayor and City Council of Monroe were parties.

The contention of the plaintiffs is that the issues decided heretofore do not bind them, because they were not parties to the causes, and that they were not represented by the Mayor and City Council of Monroe.

There was unquestionably an election held; a return of election was made and the result announced.

If there were irregularities committed in the election the remedy, in so far as relates to the election, is no longer within the jurisdiction of this court. It had been settled by repeated decisions that this court, in the absence of express law authorizing a contest, was without authority to examine into the validity of an election.

The leading case upon the subject was the case of the State vs. Judge, 13 La. 89. The opinion was subsequently affirmed and reaffirmed.

In State ex rel. Woodruff vs. Police Jury, 41 An. 851, this court said: "The Legislature was charged with the function of ordering this election and regulating the mode in which the votes should be cast and returned, and the result ascertained and proclaimed. It has exercised this function, and it has not seen fit to authorize any appeal to the court."

The rule of interpretation under which questions regarding the regularity of elections were excluded from the courts had become thoroughly known. It no longer admitted of any discussion. The courts exerted functions only to compel officers to discharge ministerial duties in election." 41 An. 851.

In 1892 the subject was brought to the attention of the Legislature. It resulted in the adoption of Act 106 of the statutes enacted during the session of that year.

It was expressly provided, in order to invest the courts with authority, which they did not previously have, that an election to impose a tax may be contested before any court of competent jurisdiction on grounds of "fraud, illegality or irregularity, within three months after the promulgation of the result of the election contested."

The election in this case was held in 1888; the tax was assessed; it was said at bar that it had been partly paid; the work has been performed; it is now, we think, no longer possible under the statute to assume jurisdiction to inquire into and determine whether an election has been legally held.

The denial on the part of the contestants that an election has been held and promulgated can not be given the effect of reopening issues of fact which must be considered closed in view of the several decisions upon that very issue. In other words, it is not possible to contest an election by denying a promulgation of the result made to appear by sufficient legal evidence.

The decree regarding the promulgation of the returns was rendered in 1894.

The court after having considered the Statute No. 84 of 1880, and the ordinance of the City Council calling the election, came to the conclusion that the result might be announced, as it was announced. It is now too late, we think, to raise the question of want of promulgation, or rather of irregularity, in announcing the result. The taxpayers are bound by the result announced.

This conclusion, in effect, disposes of all questions connected with or growing out of the election. The conclusion reached in regard to the validity of the election carries with it, in our view, a complete settlement and determination of all issues growing...