45 La. Ann. 1475 | La. | 1893
Lead Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff was at one time engaged in the manufacturing of electric traction cars and of machinery adapted thereto, and its capital, machinery, etc., were, no doubt, exempt from taxation under Art. 207 of the Constitution, which exempts “the capital, machinery and other property employed in the manufacture of ” sundry named articles, including “ machinery” and “ articles of wood.” But in March, 1891, the company closed its business and has not since been engaged in any manufacturing business. At the time of closing, it had on hand twenty-three cars which it had manufactured and which remained unsold. In 1892 these cars were assessed for taxation, and the sole question in this case is whether they are exempt under Art. 2 7.
While the business of manufacturing continued, it might well have been claimed that the unsold products were a mere form into which the capital employed in the business had temporarily passed and were therefore exempt as part of the capital employed in the business of manufacturing.
But when the business of manufacturing ceased, we fail to see how these ears, or any other capital, machinery or property which had been employed therein, could be any longer exempt. They are certainly no longer “ capital, machinery and property employed in the
It is to be borne in mind that these cars were never exempt because of their being manufactured products; if they had been, the exemption might continue until they had been disposed of. But they had no claim to exemption, except on the ground that they Mrere a part of the capital employed in manufacturing. When the business of manufacturing ceased, there was no longer any capital so employed, and these cars, like the rest of the capital, property and machinery, lost their exemption and passed into the domain of taxable property.
It is therefore adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be avoided and reversed, and that there be judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant dissolving the injunction and rejecting plaintiff’s demand at its cost in both courts.
Rehearing
On Rehearing.
In our original opinion it is erroneously stated that assessment complained of was made in the year 1892 — the suppression of the plaintiff’s business having occurred in March, 1891. This error was possibly superinduced by a statement to that effect which appears in the city attorney’s brief — the averment of plaintiff’s petition being that the property that is alleged to be exempt was assessed for taxes during the year 1891.
On theory of our opinion the unsold products of plaintiff’s manufacture, being11 amere form into which the capital employed in business had temporarily passed, were therefore exempt, as pare of the capital employed in the business of manufacturing;” at least so long as the employment continued. Therefore, inasmuch as the business of manufacturing cars ceased only in the month of March, 1891, the xemption continued- to that date at least.
Certainly an assessment of this property for the year 1890 was erroneous, and a portion of the year 1891; and we think under the circumstances of this case the ends of justice would be best subserved by sustaining the exemption and perpetuating the plaintiff’s injunction. This conclusion results necessarily in overruling our former decree — though not changing the principles of law announced in the opinion.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment and decree heretofore rendered be set aside and annulled; and it is now ordered and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.