Police Jury v. Mayor of Morgan City
Police Jury v. Mayor of Morgan City
Opinion of the Court
The police jury of St. Mary parish sues the mayor and councilmen of Morgan City for $2,759.67, which it is alleged the city agreed to pay as its share of the criminal expenses of the parish for the year 1917 in lieu of a tax.
“Be it further resolved, etc., that if the incorporated towns in the parish, to wit: Morgan City, Paterson and Franklin, shall pay into the parish treasury the equivalent of 2% mills criminal expenses and 3 mills for school purposes on the assessed value of the property situated in the corporate limits of said towns, then the said towns nor the citizens thereof shall be required to pay the sheriff the said tax and the sheriff is hereby prohibited from collecting same.”
Needless to say, this ordinance does not authorize the entering into a contract; and, even if it did, would apply only to the year 1907.
The evidence shows that the police jury was timely notified by the city that for the year 1917 said amount would not be paid by the city. There is therefore no ground for estoppel.
The judgment which dismisses plaintiff’s suit is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- POLICE JURY OF PARISH OF ST. MARY v. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEN OF MORGAN CITY
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.) 1. Counties An ordinance of a parish police jury adopted in 1907, imposing a tax of 214 mills on all property in parish for its criminal expense for that year, providing that if incorporated towns, including defendant, should pay into parish treasury the equivalent of 214 mills criminal expenses and 3 mills for. school purposes, such towns need not pay the tax imposed, did not authorize jury’s alleged contract with defendant by which defendant agreed to pay certain sum as its share of parish’s criminal expense for 1907 in lieu of the tax. 2. Estoppel Allegation in suit by parish police jury on contract that defendant agreed to pay certain sum as its share of parish’s criminal expense for 1907 in lieu of a tax and had done so since then, except for year 1917, and that parish, relying on such agreement, had fully spent said amount in criminal expenses, in view of defendant’s notice that for 1917 the amount would not be paid by it, did not show an estoppel to contest the agreement.