TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Calcasieu Trust & Savings Bank v. Wetherell

CALCASIEU TRUST & SAVINGS BANK v. WETHERELL, Assessor

Calcasieu Trust & Sav. Bank v. Wetherell, 71 So. 765 (La. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 24, 1916
Docket
No. 21803
Judges
Monroe
Citations
71 So. 765139 La. 4541916 La. LEXIS 1569
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
(Syllabus by the Court.) 1. Statutes 141(2) — Amendment—Repub-LIOATION. Act No. 182 of 1906 is a piece of independent legislation which does not purport to amend or re-enact any law, but repeals all laws in conflict or inconsistent with its provisions. It does not therefore come within the meaning of article 32 of the Constitution. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. §§ 48, 209; Dec. Dig. 141(2).]
Summary
Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu; Winston Over-ton, Judge. Action by the Calcasieu Trust & Savings-Bank against S. P. Wetherell, Assessor, and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Monroe

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Statement of the Case.

MONROE, C. J.

Plaintiff seeks to have corrected its assessment for the year 1913 by requiring the assessor to assess it up'on certain lands which were owned by it on January 1st of that year (sold on February 6th, and thereafter assessed to its vendee) and deducting the land assessment from the assessment, as made upon its capital and surplus. It is met by pleas of no right or cause of action and estoppel, based on its failure to allege compliance with section 3 of Act 1S2 of 1906, and the fact of its noncompliance. That section reads as follows:

“That it shall be the duty of each taxpayer, .the parish, of Orleans excepted, to fill out a list of his property and make oath to its correctness, in the manner and form prescribed by existing laws and return the same to the assessor, on or before the first day of April of each year, in default of which, for any cause whatever, he shall be estopped from contesting the correctness of ■ the assessment list filed by the assessor.”

Opinion.

It is admitted that no sworn list was returned by plaintiff as thus required, but plaintiff attacks the law requiring such list, as in contravention of articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution, which declare that:

“Art. 31. Every law * * * shall embrace but one object and that shall be expressed in its title.

“Art. 32. No law shall be revived, or amended by reference to its title, but in such cases, the. act revived, or section as amended, shall be re-' enacted and published at length.”

[1, 2] The act of which the section quoted forms part does not purport to amend or reenact any law, but is an independent statute, which declares that all laws or parts of laws in conflict, or inconsistent, with its provisions are repealed. Article 32 of the Constitution has therefore n'o application to it. It is entitled:

“An act to provide a mode of equalizing assessments levied on all classes of real and personal property in the state of Louisiana (except as provided by article 226 of the Constitution) ; to create a * * * board of equalization, to prescribe its duties and powers, to fix the time and place of its meetings, to fix the compensation of its members, to provide for carrying into effect the provisions of this act and repealing all laws in conflict with or inconsistent with its provisions.”

The statute confers upon the board created by it the power, within certain limits, to increase or reduce assessments, with a view to their equalization, and, as establishing a basis for its action, prescribes certain conditions relating to the finality of assessments, in 'order that it may be informed as to the time and circumstances at and under which it shall deal with them. The general object is expressed clearly enough in the title, and the condition prescribed by section 3 is one of the several means provided for its accomplishment.

We find no conflict between it and the article 31 of the Constitution, and the judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1922: 119222026peak 1922 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Cole91 So. 744 (La. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Cole91 So. 744 (La. 1922)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list