Pitre v. Haas
Citations
- 110 La. 163
- 34 So. 361
- 1903 La. LEXIS 604
Syllabus
<p>TAX TITLE — ACTION TO ENFORCE — FRAUD IN PROCUREMENT.</p> <p>1. A tract of land situated partly in Calcasieu parish and partly in St. Landry, and belonging to the succession of Dare, was sold at succession sale in September of 1893 to John H. Haas. The taxes for 1893 were not then exigible. All prior taxes had been paid. In the early part of 1893 the tract was assessed as a whole, for a single valuation, in Calcasieu parish. It was in 1894 offered for sale as a whole at public auction for the taxes of 1893, and, there being no bidders, it was adjudicated to the state. The notices required by article 210 of the constitution of 1879 were not given. The tax sale was a nullity by reason of illegal assessments and adjudication and want of legal notices, but none the less a tax deed was made to the state, and it was recorded in Calcasieu in 1894. The state never took actual possession of the land, nor did it ever cause a writ of seizure of possession to issue, and notices thereof to be given. The returns of this adjudication and others in Calcasieu parish to the state were made to the State Auditor only in December, 1901. The property was not placed in Calcasieu on a separate roll and assessed in the name of the succession of Dare, but it was assessed at once in the name of Haas, and continued to be so assessed to 1902, and he paid regularly all the taxes on it for 1894 and subsequent years.</p> <p>Pitre, the party who took the returns to the Auditor, before doing so — without authority and illegally — made himself a separate valuation for the portion of the lands in Calcasieu, and placed it on the books of the tax collector’s office, and simultaneously procured a certificate from him that all taxes on the property after those of 1893 had been paid. On the faith of this separate valuation, and of the certificate of payment of subsequent taxes, the State Auditor sold him, at private sale, the portion of the property in Calcasieu; the price of the same being based upon a
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- dismissing complaint alleging defective design of prescription medication based on comment k
- “Plaintiff's pro-se status does not excuse him from complying with procedural and substantive law.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Blanchard, Breaux, Decree, Monroe, Nicholls, Sty
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.