
    No. 6421.
    L. L. Mayenno vs. Mrs. J. H. Millaudon, Wife &c.
    On the Motion to Dismiss.
    Tii© amount of taxes on the property in controversy and tlie revenues therefrom are evidenced by the Record. It is sufficient to show the appealable amount in dispute.
    ON the Merits.
    The proceedings hy which "the purchaser at a tax-sale sues to be put in possession, although summary, should behy Petition and Citation, and not by Ruloto show cause. Pischel vs. Mercier, 32 An., 704, affirmed.
    APPEAL from the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans. Lynch, j:
    
    Chas. S. Rice, A. E. Billings and J. H. Eerguson for Plaintiff and Appellee.
    ¿T. S. Tully for Defendant and Appellant.
    Eirst — A proceeding by rule to be placed in possession of property alleged to have been purchased under Act 47 of 1873, at a tax-sale, is not authorized by law. The party applying must proceed by petition and citation.
    Second — In a tax-sale every formality of law must be complied with under pain of nullity.
   On Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Howell, J.

A motion is made to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that the appellant has no appealable interest and has not made proper parties to the appeal.

First — The answer of the appellant to the rule, from the judgment on which the appeal is taken, alleges that the value of the property in controversy is $6000, which is supported by the amount of the taxes thereon and the revenues therefrom, as shown in the record, the contest being between the purchaser at a tax-sale and the original owner for the delivery and possession of the property.

Second — The second ground is not urged in appellee’s brief, but we do not find any force in it.

Motion refused.

On the Mebits.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Poché, J.

Plaintiff, alleging that he is the purchaser at a tax-sale of certain property assessed in the name of defendant, proceeds by rule to obtain possession of the property thus acquired by him and yet in the possession of the original owner.

Defendant excepted to the proceeding by rule, her exception was overruled, and she answered alleging the nul’ity of plaintiff’s title, on the ground of irregularities and illegalities in the tax-sale.

From a judgment rendered against her on the merits, and having reserved the benefit of her exception, defendant has taken the present appeal.

In the case of Fischel vs. Mercier, 32 A. 704, we reviewed in full the identical question involved in defendant’s exception, and we decided that the purchaser of property at a tax-sale cannot, under our laws, proceed to evict the former owner by a proceeding by rule, but must bring his action by petition and citation, under which the validity of his pretended sale can be fully investigated.

The district judge erred in overruling defendant’s exception in this case.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled, avoided and reversed ; that the exception of defendant to the proceeding by rule be maintained, and that plaintiff’s action be dismissed at his costs in both courts.  