the assessment. The validity vel non of that title does not affect the assessment. Augusti vs. Bank, 46 An. 529. The assessor need not look beyond the title on record. Palmer vs. Board, 42 An. 1122; Gee vs. Clark, Id. 918; Prescott vs. Payne, 44 An. 656; Williams vs. Landry, 47 An. 5. But see Lockhard vs. Smith, 47 An. 121. A tax title is valid until its nullity is judicially decreed, even though it is inherently void. Prescott vs. Payne, Tucker vs. Payne, 44 An. 650.

One who purchases land from the State is its owner. The assessment of the land to another, and its sale for taxes under such assessment, can not convey title to the purchaser, the State. It can not ignore the title of her own patentee. McWilliams vs. Michel, 43 An. 984.

The assessment in the name of one dead, and many years after his death, is void. Edwards et al. vs. Fairex, 47 An. 170.

An assessment to the estate of one who resided and died in another parish, and whose heirs also reside there, is defective and a sale thereunder is null and void. Norris et al. vs. Hayes et al., 44 An. 907.

An assessment in 1887 in the name of a dead man whose succession was opened in 1876, and the attempted sale of the property, without notice to the representative of the succession, is irregular and void. Cucullu, etc., vs. Brackenridge, etc., Co., 49 An. 1445.

The assessment of property in the name of one long since deceased and whose succession has been opened, inventory made, executor appointed in the parish where the property is situated, is void. Montgomery vs. Marydale, etc., Co., 46 An. 403.

A title based on assessment made to a dead person when the property was on record as belonging to another is an absolute nullity. The defect is fundamental and can not be cured by monition. Kerns vs. Collins, 40 An. 453.

Property not previously assessed, and the owner of which can not be discovered by examination of the records at the conveyance office, and by inquiry of adjacent proprietors, may be assessed to "unknown owner. "Robinson vs. Williams. 45 An. 485.

The payment of taxes by one not the owner empowers him to set aside a tax sale made on an assessment to the owner, where it appears that the property was assessed to both, and was in possession of the taxpayer. Webert vs. Michel, 42 An. 853.

Where property has not been legally assessed, a sale under Act 82 of 1884, is a nullity. Augusti vs. Lawless, 43 An. 1097.

An assessment, etc., "to H. C. Dible, Tutor," is sufficient without mentioning the names of the minors, and will support a tax title based thereon. Dible vs. Leffert, 47 An. 792. Even the absence of the word "tutor " from some of the assessments will not invalidate the sale. Id.

A sale will be annulled when only part of the property was assessed, and when there was some confusion as to the name of the tax debtor. Reeves vs. Recorder, 47 An. 1138. The assessment must be to one who has at least a prima facie title; if made to one who acquired through purchase from another who purchased under a seizure in a suit, to which the actual owner was not a party, the assessment will be void. Martin vs. Athletic Club, 48 An. 1051.

Tax Titles Generally.—A sale of property under Act 107, 1880, is void when it was made as of property forfeited to the State, when in fact the property was not forfeited. Waddil vs. Walton, 42 An. 763.

A tax deed under Act 107, 1880, is void when made for a less amount than the taxes due on the property. Waddil vs. Walton, 42 An. 763. So also where the

deed shows that the property was sold as an entirety in violation of Const., Art. Norris vs. Hays, 44 An. 907.

210.

The sale by the State of property upon which the taxes have been paid is an absolute nullity. Lefebre vs. Negrotto, 44 An. 792; Brown vs. Land Co., 48 An. 1180. That the sale was caused by the mistake of the tax collector can not affect the innocent taxpayer. Lefebre vs. Negrotto, 44 An. 792.

The vendor who warrants the title can not redeem the property from a prior tax sale, in such a manner as to invalidate the title he is bound to warrant. Wheeler vs. McBain, 43 An. 859.

A sale by the adjudicatee of a tax sale, to the original owner, for about the same price that the adjudicatee paid at the tax sale, will not vest a new title in the original owner, where it appears that the tax sale was provoked for the purpose. The price paid by the original owner to the adjudicatee, will be treated as a payment of the taxes due, and the rights of the original owner left to rest on the original title. Montgomery vs. Whitfield, 41 An. 653.

The rights of special mortgages are not impaired by the waiver of all legalities and nullities by the tax debtor and mortgagor. Beltram vs. Villere, 40 An. (not reported. See 4 So. R. 506).

Taxes prime all other incumbrances, and a valid tax sale passes title free from mortgage. In re Douglas, 41 An. 765.

A tax title is perfect without judicial proceedings to obtain possession, when possession is voluntarily given by the divested owner. Martin vs. Langenstine, 43 An. 789. So also where it is based upon an assessment in the name of one who had purchased at a tax sale, which was subsequently annulled. The assessment was valid, and annulling the first sale did not affect the second. Prescott vs. Payne, Tucker vs. Same, 45 An. 650.

Under Act 42, 1874, the tax collector's deed is a valid muniment of title. Barrow vs. Wilson 39 An. 403. Of what a tax deed under Act 82 of 1884 is conclusive evidence. In re Lake, 40 An. 142; 41 An. 765; Henderson vs. Ellerman, 47 An. 306. The divested owner may show that it was not assessed at all. In re

Lake, 40 An. 132.

A sale of more than enough property to pay the taxes due will be set aside. How offer of portion should be made. Land, etc., Co. vs. Succession of Fassnacht, 47 An. 1294, and see Bristol vs. Murff, 49 An. 357.

The record at the conveyance office of the State's title will protect one who purchases from the State. Denegre vs. Buchanan & Donan, 47 An. 1559.

A tax title offered to one who has agreed to buy the property must be produced and its prima facie effect shown to be unimpaired. Fitzpatrick vs. Leake, 47 An. 1644; See Same vs. Same, 49 An. 794, and Michener vs. Reinach, 49 An. 360.

A tax title executed in conformity with law is presumed to be valid. Stroebel vs. Seeger, 49 An. 36. If authority exists for the sale, the title is not vitiated by reference in the deed to superseded legislation. Sims vs. Walsh, 49 An. 781. A tax deed which gives the correct number of the block, the streets that bound it, and the street on which the lot fronts is good, though the front and depth of the lot are not correctly given by a few inches each. Smith vs. City, 43 An. 726.

Tender of Purchase Price.-In an attack on a tax title it is sufficient if a tender of the amount of the tax paid and 10 per cent. as provided in the Constitution is made during the progress of the suit, or it may be liquidated in the decree. Prescott vs. Payne, 44 An. 650. A tender previous to institution of the suit is not applicable to tax sales. State vs. Cannon, 44 An. 734.

The owner who has paid the tax need not make tender. Lefebre vs. Negrotto, 44 An. 792, nor the mortgagee who seeks to annul tax sale. Beltram vs. Villere, 40 An. (not reported, 4 S. R. 506).

Prescription in Aid of and Against Tax Titles.-The holder of a tax title who sues the divested owner for possession must rely on his title; he will not be aided by prescription. Waddil vs. Walton, 42 An. 763, and see Smith vs. City, 43 An. 726; Surget vs. Newman, 42 An. 777.

In an action to annul a tax title the adjudicatee or holder thereof can plead the prescription of Act 105, 1874, against the action to annul, only where he is in possession. Breaux vs. Negrotto, 43 An. 426.

A title obtained at a void tax sale, is not aided by the prescription of ten years, unless the adjudicatee was in possession during all that time. Prescott vs. Payne, 44 An. 650. See cases supra under this head.

The purchaser at a tax sale in open and public possession of the property for thirteen years, and for more than three since claimants reached majority, before an action to annul was instituted, may plead prescription thereto. Barrow vs. Wilson, 39 An. 403, overruling Person vs. O'Neal, 32 An. 237.

Want of notice is not cured by prescription. Parish of Concordia vs. Berteron, 46 An. 356. Montgomery vs. Marydale, etc., Co., Id. 403. But want of thirty days advertisement is cured by prescription of five years. Robinson vs. Williams, 45 An. 485.

A tax sale made by the proper officer and evidenced by a deed apparently valid becomes absolute and perfect in ten years, since the purchaser was not in bad faith. Heirs of Wykoff vs. Miller, 48 An. 475.

Prescription for taxes runs from the end of the year in which they were imposed. It is interrupted by litigation necessary for their collection. Wood and Creosoting, etc., Company in Liquidation, 49 An. 926.

Lien and Privilege.-Personal property is affected with a lien for taxes due on it, without recording. Mullan vs. Creditors, 39 An. 397.

The filing of the assessment roll in the office of the recorder of mortgages, acts as a lien on each specific piece of land assessed on it, and as a legal mortgage after December 31 of the current year. Behan vs. Board, 46 An. 870; see Secs. 31 to 33, p. 800. Recording an assessment against merchandise and money at interest does not operate as a lien on the immovable property of the tax debtor. Saloy vs. Wood, 40 An. 585.

Liens for taxes on immovables lapse after three years unless recorded. Const., Art. 176. Factors, etc., Ins. Co. vs. Levi, 42 An. 232.

Under Act 96, 1877, Sec. 36, the lien and privilege resulting from inscription are prescribed after three years, but the taxes remain due. Suc. of Stewart, 41 An. 127. This applies also to municipal taxes due the city of New Orleans. Id.

The privileges and mortgages securing the payment of city taxes are prescriptible, but the taxes themselves are imprescriptible, and the property remains subject to seizure, in the enforced collection of the taxes. Leeds & Co. vs. Hardie, 43 An. 810. Where the lien, etc., are prescribed, the obligation to pay is personal, and the purchaser of property is not bound. Same vs. Same, 44 An. 556; Suc. of West. Id. 277. Licenses and taxes for 1870 to 1877 are a lien and privilege, and must be paid by preference over all mortgages and encumbrances. Morris vs. Lalaurie, 39 An. 47.

Redemption of Property.—A tenant can not redeem though he was owner of the property before the delinquent taxpayer, and had been divested by sheriff's sale. Whittaker vs. Ashby, 43 An. 117. The sale of the property by the adjudicatee at the tax sale, to a third person, will not enable the delinquent tax debtor to redeem, though he claim that the adjudicatee was induced to sell by the false representations of the third person, that he was a creditor of the tax debtor. Staples vs. Mayer, 44 An. 628.

Under Act 42, 1871, the privilege of redemption was extended to any interested person, and so includes the purchaser at the tax sale. McDougall vs. Montlezun, 39 An. 1005.

The title to property sold for taxes is in the purchaser; when redeemed it reverts to the original owner and is liable for his debts, though he has subrogated the lender of the money used for redemption, to all the rights of the owner. Caubon vs. Lapene, 40 An. 557.

The vendor of lands who warrants the title, can not redeem them from a prior tax sale, in such a manner as to invalidate the title he is bound to maintain. Wheeler vs. McBain, 43 An. 859.

Miscellaneous.-The tax title to property is not affected because it was mortgaged to the Citizens Bank for stock or bonds, and the mortgage could have been foreclosed at any time. Augusti vs. Citizens Bank, 46 An. 529.

The town of Kenner, in Jefferson parish, incorporated in 1873, is not for the purposes of taxation, within the jurisdiction of the Police Jury. Felix vs. Waggoner, 39 An. 391.

Liability of purchaser of property, sold by error for taxes which have been paid. Fernandez vs. Smith, 43 An. 708.

The mortgagee who purchases the property sold under executory process instituted by him, is estopped from objecting to the assessment as having been made to the survivor of a community, when in fact it was community property, if it is shown that the survivor paid the taxes for several years, and so ratified the assessment. Factors and Traders' Ins. Co. vs. Levi, 42 An. 432.

An erroneous exemption from assessment may be corrected by the Board of Assessors by a supplemental roll if the error is discovered within three years. Parker vs. Gaslight Co., 44 An. 753.

The owner of property assessed in the name of another, is estopped from denying the correctness of the assessment, if he pays the taxes. Succession of West, 44 An. 277.

Taxes levied under Act 33, 1879, and not collected prior to Act 44, 1886, were not abrogated, but were preserved and kept in force after the passage of the act of 1886 by the provisions of Sec. 9. Gaither vs. Green, 40 An. 362.

Authority of Tax Collector.-A statute which authorized a tax collector to sell property forfeited to the State, or purchased by it at tax sales, does not confer power on him to sell the property of a delinquent taxpayer, in satisfaction of taxes due the State. Prescott vs. Payne, Tucker vs. Same, 44 An. 650.

The tax collector selling property under Act 82 of 1884 is not authorized to hold the money realized when the title by the State has not been attacked or annulled. The possibility of future litigation will not avail him. State vs. Houston, 39 An. 33.

The tax collector is without power to seize for taxes property other than that which was assessed therefor, without first complying with the provisions of Act 85 of 1884, Sec. 54 (see p. 806). Oteri vs. Parker, 42 An. 374. The provisions of the

Act of 1877 which permitted this are repealed by Const., Art. 210. Meyer vs. Parker, 41 An. 440.

Bond of Tax Collector.-Bond operates as a mortgage in favor of all persons interested, and covers the duties imposed before it was signed. The State may stand in judgment in a suit on the bond, and the principal and sureties can confess a valid judgment. Pearce vs. State, 49 An. 643.

LICENSES.*

The last general license act is Act 150, 1890, p. 189. Sec. 10, was amended by Act 38, 1894, p. 41, and again by Act 78, 1896, p. 110; Secs. 24, 26, were amended by Act 106, 1894, p. 140. The sections as printed are those now in effect.

Act 150, 1890, p. 189.

AN ACT to levy, collect and enforce payment of an annual license tax upon all persons, associations of persons, or business firms and corporations, pursuing any trade, profession, vocation, calling of business, except those who are expressly excepted from such license tax by Articles 206 and 207 of the Constitution.

SECTION 1. Person, Corporations, etc., Subject to.-That there is hereby levied an annual license tax for the year A. D. 1891, and for each subsequent year, upon each person, association of persons or business firms and corporations, pursuing any trade, profession, vocation, calling or business, except those expressly exempt from such license tax by Articles 206 and 207 of the Constitution.

SEC. 2. When Due and Collectible.-That on the second day of January. A. D. 1891, and each subsequent year, each tax collector through the State shall begin to collect and shall collect as fast as possible from each of the persons or business firms, association of persons and corporations pursuing within his district or parish any trade, profession, vocation, calling or business, a license tax as hereinafter graduated.

All licenses shall be due and collectible during the first two (2) nonths of each year, and all unpaid licenses shall become delinquent on the first day of March of each year, and all firms who commence business after that date shall become delinquent unless the license is paid within ten days.

SEC. 3. Classes.-That the annual licenses for all the kinds of business hereinafter named, except as afterwards provided, shall be graduated in twentyfive classes.

MANUFACTURES.

Paragraph 1. That for carrying on each business of manufacturing not expressly exempted by Articles 206 and 207 of the Constitution, the license shall be based on gross annual receipts of said business as follows, to-wit:

First class-When the said receipts are ten millions of dollars or more, the license shall be eight thousand dollars, $8000.

Second class-When the said receipts are nine millions of dollars or more, and under ten millions of dollars, the license shall be seven thousand dollars, $7000

Third class-When the said receipts shall be eight millions of dollars or more, and under nine millions of dollars, the license shall be five thousand six hundred dollars, $5600.

Fourth class-When the said receipts are seven millions of dollars or more, and under eight millions dollars, the license shall be forty-nine hundred dollars, $4900.

Fifth class-When the said receipts are six millions of dollars or more, and under seven million dollars, the license shall be forty-two hundred dollars, $4200.

*See note of Decissions printed at p.851.