State ex rel. Busha's Heirs v. Register of Conveyances
Citations
- 113 La. 93
- 36 So. 900
- 1904 La. LEXIS 622
Syllabus
<p>TAXATION — OFFER TO REDEEM — REFUSAL BY ADJUDICATEE — MANDAMUS.</p> <p>1. The contention of the defendant (an adjudicatee at a tax sale), based upon Raymond v. Villere, 7 South. 900, 42 La. Ann. 488, that he is entitled, after he has refused to accept the money tendered him for the redemption of the property which he had purchased, to have the steps taken for the redemption conducted contradictorily with himself through judicial proceedings via ordinaria, commencing with a petition and- followed by a citation, is without foundation. While an adjudicatee at a tax sale acquires certain rights, he assumes certain duties ; among them the duty of allowing the redemption of the property on tender of the amount fixed by law. If he refuses to perform that duty, mandamus is the proper remedy.</p> <p>2. When a person’s property is sold at tax sale, the owner is not ipso facto deprived of the ownership and the legal possession thereof, though the adjudicatee acquires certain rights in respect to the property, which, if not cut off by redemption, will ripen into ownership. During the period fixed for redemption the rights of the adjudicatee are inchoate.</p> <p>3. Any one may, for the advantage of the owner of the property, act as his negotiorum gestor, and make payment of redemption money; this even without his knowledge. There is a difference between redemption under a conventional sale made with right of redemption reserved and redemption under a tax adjudication.</p> <p>Provosty, J., dissenting.</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.
- dismissing negligence per se claim when “Plaintiffs here are financial institutions who are neither consumers nor competitors of Chipotle. Nor have Plaintiffs alleged that they were otherwise harmed by destruction of competition resulting from Chipotle’s acts.”
- “there is no basis in Colorado statutory or common law for imposing a duty of care related to data security”
- “Injunctive relief is not a separate cause of action; rather, it is one form of relief for the other legal violations alleged.”
- “[T]he named plaintiffs must allege an actual injury, not an ‘injury that has been suffered by other unidentified members of the class.’” (quoting Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 n.6 (2016))
- “[T]he named plaintiffs must allege an actual injury, not an ‘injury that has been suffered by other unidentified members of the class.’” (quoting Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 n.6 (2016))
- “[T]he named plaintiffs must allege an actual injury, not an ‘injury that has been suffered by other unidentified members of the class.’” (quoting Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 n.6 (2016))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nicholls, Provosty, See, South
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.