State v. Armbruster
Also decided on this docket: La., April 25, 1932 142 So. 125
State v. Armbruster, 139 So. 753 (La. 1932).
Cited by
- Alexander v. Dominick 533 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
- Hutson v. Madison Parish Police Jury 496 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
- McCoy v. Franklin Parish Police Jury 414 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
- Richards v. American Home Assurance Co. 241 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
- King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
- Beavers v. Butler 188 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
- McMorris v. Hanover Insurance Co. 175 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
- Abboud v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 157 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
- Carter v. Canal Insurance Co. 154 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
- Grayson v. Allstate Insurance Company 141 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
- Bordelon v. Couvillion 130 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
- Hargett v. Chemical Service, Inc. 116 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Opinion text
BRUNOT, J. This is a proceeding by rule upon the defendants, a commercial' partnership, operating under the trade-name of Independent Oil Refining Company, the recovery of taxes, delinquency penalty, and attorney’s fees amounting to $512.82, alleged to be due by defendant as a dealer in gasoline or motor fuel. After a hearing upon the rule in the court below, the judge held that the commodity sought to be taxed was a low-grade distillate, not subject to the tax levied under Act No. 6 of the Extra Session of 1928, as amended by Act No. 8 of 1930; and for that reason he dismissed the suit, but upon the motion of the state and because the issue presented by the pleadings requires judicial interpretation of legislative acts, he granted the state an appeal to this court. The appellee has filed here an exception to the jurisdiction of this court ratione materiie, basing the exception upon the ground .that the sum claimed by the state is less than the minimum jurisdiction of this court. In this matter, whether or not the tax claimed is authorized by law is the issue. The payment of the tax is resisted upon the ground that the commodity sought to be taxed is not taxable. To determine whether or not it is taxable requires an interpretation of Act No. 6 of the Extra Session of 1928, as amended by Act No. 8 of 1930. Where the legality of the tax is an issue, this court has appellate jurisdiction regardless of the amount involved. Section 10, article 7 of the Constitution of 1921, The exception to the jurisdiction of the court ratione materise is not well founded, and the motion to dismiss the appeal, based on said exception, is overruled. ST. PAUL, J., dissents.