Pitre v. Schleslinger

Citations

• 110 La. 234
• 34 So. 425
• 1903 La. LEXIS 615

Syllabus

<p>TAX SALE — PURCHASE BY STATE — PRESCRIPTION — ESTOPPEL—PAYMENTPRESUMPTION.</p> <p>1. The state, having continued to assess the property to the former owners after buying it at tax sale, and continued to collect taxes from these former owners, is estopped from pleading the prescription of article 233 of the Constitution against these foymer owners; and the same estoppel operates as against the vendee of the state relying for prescription upon the time that elapsed while the tax title was in the state, and the state was thus assessing the property and collecting taxes.</p> <p>2. The testimony of the tax debtor to the effect that he does not remember paying the tax, but that he is satisfied in his own mind he did, because his custom was to pay his taxes promptly, and he finds he paid his city tax of the same year, cannot outweigh the presumption of nonpayment arising from the fact of the property’s having been proceeded against for delinquency.</p> <p>3. Ashley & Co. v. David Bradford et al., S3 South. 6d4, 109 La. 641, distinguished.</p> <p>Breaux and Blanchard, JJ., dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>