
    No. 5733.
    T. S. Serrill v. The City of New Orleans.
    It is no part of the duty of the clerk of the Finance Department to execute or pay judgments against the city of New Orleans, so as to bind it, and particularly when said city had taken a suspensive appeal of which-the clerk was not aware. It is no reason to dismiss the appeal, that the defendant and appellant has acquiesced in the judgment by receiving payment of taxes from the plaintiff in accordance with said judgment.
    Absence is no excuse for the noncompliance with the requirements of the law and for not objecting, within the proper time, to the assessment roll.
    APPEAL from the Superior District Court, parish of Orleans. Hawkins, J.
    
      H. H. Walsh, for plaintiff and appellee. S. P. Blame, assistant city attorney, for defendant and appellant.
   On Motion to Dismiss.

Howell, J.

A motion is made to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the defendant and appellant has voluntarily accepted and acquiesced in the judgment appealed from, and the appellee has paid his assessment as fixed by said judgment.

It appears that the plaintiff took a rule on the city of New Orleans to have the assessment of his property for taxation reduced; that the rule was made absolute, and the assessment reduced from $75,000 to $20,000; that a suspensive appeal was taken by the city; that the plaintiff procured a copy of the judgment, presented it to a clerk in the Department of Accounts and offered to pay; that he was told to call again, which he did in a day or two, and the usual form of bill for taxes at the reduced assessment was furnished in the Finance Department, and he paid it; but the clerk swears that he was not aware that an appeal had been taken, and no notice of the matter seems to have been given to the mayor or city attorney.

Under these circumstances the city is not bound by the action of the clerk. It is no part of the duty of this clerk to execute or pay judgments against the city, so as to bind the city as claimed.

Motion refused.

On the Merits.

Mor&an, J.

No objection is made to the mode of correcting the assessment.

The only testimony in support of the plaintiff is his own evidence, and this, we think, condemns him.

He says he was abroad when the assessment rolls were opened for correction, and did not return until they were closed.

It is evident, then, that he was assessed and that his assessment was placed upon the assessment roll. He should have made his objection to the assessment to the assessment board when the rolls were made out, within the time given him by the law.

His absence “ abroad ” is no excuse for his not having complied with the requirements of the law.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged aud decreed that the judgment of the district court be avoided, annulled and reversed, and that the rule herein taken be dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.  