
    No. 1055.
    Hortense Dupérier vs. Police Jury of Iberia Parish.
    Where the police jury of a parish, in obedience to a judgment of court in favor of a certain party, levy a tax to satisfy the judgment, the party will not be entitled to a mandamus to compel tbe jury to levy another tax to satisfy the judgment, because the partial collections from the first tax were insufficient, until he shall have proceeded against the tax collector to compel him to collect the whole of the assessment and levy of the first tax.
    The execution of a judgment of this court directing the police jury of a parish to levy a certain tax, cannot be affected by a subsequent act of the legislature, limiting the power of police juries to impose taxes.
    APPEAL from the Third Judicial District Court, parish of Iberia. Fontelieu, J.
    
      J. A. Breaux for plaintiff and appellant.
    
      W. F. Sclnointj for defendant and appellee.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Manning, C. J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus to compel the police jury of Iberia parish to place upon its estimate of expenses tbe unpaid residue of the plaintiff’s judgment against the parish, and to levy a tax sufficient to pay the same. The tax assessor is made a party defendant also.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant in 1876. Duperier v. Pol. Jury Iberia, 28 Annual, 613. Under that judgment the defendant in that year levied a tax of three mills on each dollar’s valuation of property on the roll of 1875 to pay it. A portion of this tax was collected, but not all, and therefore not enough to satisfy the judgment. The object of this mandamus is to compel the levy of another and additional tax on the roll of 1877 to pay this unsatisfied residue. . We do not think she is entitled to it at .present.

This prooess of making a part of the tax-owers bear all the burdens of the government is not confined to Iberia parish. A tax of three mills was presumably sufficient, if collected, to discharge the debt. A part of those who owe taxes pay them. Others do not, and are not made to pay. A new and additional tax is laid to pay the residue of the debt. A part pay that — the same that paid the first — and the delinquents repeat their delinquency. Not enough is yet collected, and this tax levying goes on ad infinitum or until the repeated payments by the tax payers extinguishes the debt that should have been borne proportionately by all the tax-owers. This is the root of half our wo. .

The. plaintiff should have proceeded against the tax collector to compel him to collect the whole of the assessment and levy of the three mill tax, which had been made for the express purpose of paying her judgment. The law provides ways and means for the collection of taxes, and until these are exhaused, the plaintiff or relator cannot rightly demand other process for the enforcement of her claim than that already given, and which the police jury have endeavoured to effectuate by complying with the mandate of this court to levy a tax to pay it.

Judgment affirmed.

On application for rehearing.

The plaintiff’s main object in applying for a rehearing is to have us pass upon the question presented in the pleadings — whether the collection of the tax necessary to pay her judgment can be enforced, if that tax, added to others levied in same year, shall exceed the maximum limitation of taxation for that year.

The plaintiff’s judgment was rendered in 1876, and the decree of this court then made directed the defendant to levy a tax sufficient to pay it. The subsequent passage of a law, limiting parochial taxation, can have no effect upon that judgment. The police jury will be compelled to pay it by legal process, if it turns out that the levy of the tax of three mills on the roll of 1875 is insufficient, but all the means at command to force the tax collector to proceed against delinquents on that roll must be first exhausted. Suits are not necessary to compel the payment of taxes. A more summary process is the seizure of the property of the delinquent, and its forced and speedy sale, for which the law has furnished ample warrant, and has prescribed the forms of such proceeding in its several stages.

The rehearing is refused.  