Bartley v. Sallier
Citations
- 118 La. 93
- 42 So. 657
- 1906 La. LEXIS 839
Syllabus
<p>Taxation — Tax Title — Peesceiption — Validitt oe Sale — Improvements.</p> <p>Plaintiff complains of the judgment against him as incorrect and illegal. That brings up the issues of the case.</p> <p>The defendants are owners in possession since a date preceding the origin of plaintiff’s asS6i?fc6cl claim</p> <p>Plaintiff ciaims as tax owner. He has never had possession sufficient to sustain his title and to bring it within the prescriptive period of article 233 of the Constitution.</p> <p>(a) The property was not owned by the person in whose name it was sold for taxes.</p> <p>(b) There was no notice given as required to render a tax sale valid.</p> <p>Improvements. Plaintiff is entitled to his improvements placed on the property in good faith.</p> <p>There is deficiency of proof of ownership and value.</p> <p>[Ed. Note — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 45, Taxation, §§ 1274, 1588-1597, 1334, 1648, 1649.1</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- Professors “do not, and cannot, bring a derivative action . . . under District of Columbia law” and “failed to identify any other District of Columbia cause of action by which they can assert ASA’s claims”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breaux
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.