Slattery v. Kellum

Citations

• 114 La. 282
• 38 So. 170
• 1905 La. LEXIS 454

Syllabus

<p>TAXATION — QUIETING TITLE — ACTION BY TAX PURCHASER — PLEADING—POSSESSION —PRESCRIPTION.</p> <p>1. The purpose of Act No. 101, p. 127, of 1898, is to enable a tax purchaser to quiet his title by bringing suit against the real party or parties in interest; and such suit may be properly brought, though not brought against the person to whom the property was assessed when sold, if such assessment was erroneous, and such person neither has, nor pretends to have, any interest in the title.</p> <p>2. Neither Act Ijío. 101, p. 127, of 1898, nor the jurisprudence of this court, requires that a tax purchaser suing under said act to quiet his title shall allege possession in himself, or want of possession in the defendant. The fact of possession by the defendant is for him a matter of defense — a shield to be used for his protection against the plea of prescription used by the plaintiff as a weapon.</p> <p>3. Where the person in whom title is vested at the moment of the sale for taxes has never been in actual possession of the property sold, and no one else is in possession, the tax purchaser acquires civil or constructive possession by virtue of the sale; and, though he may not take actual possession, nevertheless, as between him and the former owner, he may invoke the prescription declared by article 233 of the Constitution of 1898 in support of his title, and his right to do so is not affected by the fact that his possession has been disturbed or wrested from him by other persons, not parties to the litigation, and between whom and the former owner no privity of title exists.</p> <p>4. Where, in a litigation arising under Act No. 101, p. 327, of 1898, between the former owner and the holder of a tax title, prima facie valid, there is nothing in the question of possession which takes the case out of the rule of prescription recognized and applied by this court as having been declared by the Constitution, and it is not alleged that there had been a dual assessment, or tha