Harris v. Deblieux
Citations
- 115 La. 148
- 38 So. 946
- 1905 La. LEXIS 632
Syllabus
<p>TAXATION — SALE OF WIFE’S BEOPEBTY — TAX AGAINST HUSBAND — PEESCEIPTION — PAYMENT.</p> <p>1. Paraphernal property of a married woman duly recorded was assessed in the name of the husband, and sold under such assessment at a tax sale without notice either to the husband or wife. The sale was a nullity.</p> <p>2. Prescription of three years under article 233 of the Constitution of 1898 could not be invoked. The property was sold in part in enforcement of a poll tax of the husband for the year which he had already paid. A tax sale made in enforcement of taxes part of .which have been paid is null.</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.
- stating that “[t]he Maryland demand requirement is strictly construed and frequently leads to the dismissal of derivative actions”
- explaining that, to satisfy the Werbowsky standard, the allegations must demonstrate a director’s “commitment not to ‘wrongdoing’ generally, but to ‘the decision in dispute’”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nicholls
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.