Skip to main content
· 3/14/1904

Finney v. Gulf States Land & Imp. Co.

Citations

  • 112 La. 949
  • 36 So. 814
  • 1904 La. LEXIS 495

Syllabus

<p>TAXATION — DELINQUENT LIST — FILING — EVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. A delinquent list containing the name of the delinquent taxpayer, the amount of the tax, and a description of the property, was duly recorded by the tax collector in the office of the recorder of mortgages. Afterwards another delinquent list containing the name of the taxpayer and the amount of the tax, but not a description of the property, was published by the State Auditor in compliance with section 8, p. 100, Act No. 47 of 1873. Held, that the fact that the auditor thus published the latter list in compliance with section 8, p. 100, Act No. 47 of 1873, does not prove that the former list, or a copy thereof, was filed in his office in compliance with section 68, p. 122, Act No. 42 of 1871, nor that the property in question was adjudicated at tax sale under Act No. 47, p. 98, of 1873. The publication under section 8, p. 100, Act No. 47, of 1873, has for its sole and exclusive purpose the forfeiture of the right of the delinquent taxpayer to bring suit and be a witness in a court of justice. It aims at the taxpayer individually, and not at the property, and is no part of the process of either forfeiting the property under Act No. 42, p. 104, of 1871, or selling it under Act No. 47, p. 98, of 1873.</p> <p>2. To vest the taxpayer’s title in the state under section 68, p. 122, Act No. 42 of 1871, there had to be a filing in the State Auditor’s office of a copy of the same delinquent list which the tax collector had caused to be recorded in the office of the recorder of mortgages ; that is to say, of a delinquent list containing, in addition to the name of the taxpayer and the amount of the tax, a description of the property,</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.

  • reducing a fee award sought by Mussman and Ku for 46.1 hours drafting a motion for summary judgment to 27.66 hours
  • determining $275.00 to be reasonable hourly rate for an two attorneys, each with 16 years of experience, and finding $275.00 to represent “a reasonable blending of various other hourly rates awarded in other cases [in the Eastern District of Louisiana].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sick, Sty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.