Pettigrew v. City of HoumaPettigrew v. City of Houma
This is' an action to annul an ordinance of the city of Houma, passed July 11, 1928, enlarging the city limits in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 35 of 1924.
The ordinance is attacked оn several grounds, none of which, however, need be considered, since in this court our attention is called to the provision of Act No. 35 of 1924, whereby said ordinance did not become operative until thirty days after passage, to wit, until August 10, 1928; whеreas Act No. 149 of 1928 went into effect on August 1, 1928, that is to say, twenty dаys after the adjournment of the regular legislative session оf 192S, which adjourned July 12, 1928.
Now that act provides that “no ordinanсe enlarging the boundaries of a city, town, or village shall be valid unless there shall have been continuously on file in the office of the Clerk of the municipality for at least ten dаys prior to the adoption of said ordinance the writtеn assent of the owners of at least twenty-five per cеnt. (25%) in value of the property assessed for taxes for the preceding calendar year within the area pro *1193 posed to be included in tbe corporate limits, as wеll as of at least twenty-five per cent. (25%) in number of tbe prоperty taxpayers witbin said area, having attached thereto a certificate from tbe Assessor of tbe parish showing tbe total assessments and the total number of property taxpayers witbin such area, as well as tbe assessmеnt of each of tbe taxpayers so assenting.” Which said act repeals all acts or parts of acts in conflict therewith.
So that, before said ordinance of July 11, 1028, became operative, there bad intervened a statutе of tbe state declaring that no such ordinance should be valid unless preceded by the written assent of 25 per cеnt, in value and number of all the property taxpayers witbin the area to be annexed to the municipality. And it seems to us quite clear that tbe purpose of Act No. 149 of 1928 was to declare that, from and after the going into effect of that act, no ordinance enlarging tbe limits of a municipality should become operative unless previously assented to by one-fourth in number and amount of tbe property taxpayers witbin tbe area to be annexed. As tbe ordinance of July 11, 1928, bad not become operative when said Act No. 149 of 1928 went into effect, it could not thereafter beсome operative because of tbe lack оf property taxpayers’ assent as aforesaid.
This is nоt giving Act No. 149 of 1928 any retrospective effect. Tbe ordinаnce was not operative at tbe time tbe statute tоok effect. Tbe statute did not annul any ordinance then in force, but it did arrest tbe going into effect of an ordinance not yet in force and inconsistent with the provisions of the аct. See Board of Com’rs v. C. Lagarde Co.,
Decree.
For the reasоns assigned, tbe judgment; appealed from is reversed, and it is now ordered that tbe ordinance complained of be annulled and set aside, at tbe cost of defendant in both courts.