The opinion of the court was delivered by
McEnery, J.
The plaintiffs own three mills and manufactories, the Morning Glory, Homestead and Indian Village.
The Morning Glory is exclusively employed in the manufacture of shingles.
The Homestead is a planing mill, turning out dressed flooring, ceiling, wainscoting, all kinds of mouldings, all kinds of window casing, car roofing, car siding cut to length, all kinds of pickets that are used in trade, both beveled and dressed, weather-boarding, dressed and beveled, dressed lumber and plastering laths, all of which are finished products, ready for use when they leave the mill.
The Indian Village Mill manufactures lumber, shingles, laths, railroad material and pickets, and much of its lumber is sent to the Homestead Mill, there to be converted into-finished products. The railroad material is not described. We are therefore unable to say whether it is exempt or not.
All the articles of wood mentioned above, except the “ railroad material,” bridge timber and lumber, are exempt under the rulings in the case of Martin vs. City of New Orleans, 38 An. 397, and Cypress Lumber Co. vs. Bruslé, Sheriff and Tax Collector, and White Castle Lumber Co. vs. Browne, Assessor, and Bruslé, Sheriff and Tax Collector, just decided.
This case will be remanded to take evidence as to the character of the railroad material to ascertain whether it is an article of wood, as decided in the cases referred to. If so, it is exempt, and that part of the decree perpetuating the injunction will cover it also. If not, it will fall under that part of the decree affirming the judgment ap - pealed from; and also to ascertain the amount of capital, the value of the property and machinery employed by plaintiffs in the articles of wood .exempt from taxation under Art. 207 of the Constitution.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be amended so as to revérse that part of the judgment which dissolves and sets aside the injunction issued to prevent the sale of plaintiffs’ property employed for the years in which it was assessed in the manufacture of articles of wood, stated in the opinion to be exempt from taxation under Art. 207 of the Constitution, and as to them it be perpetuated. In other respects the judgment is affirmed; the case being remanded to the lower court to ascertain the amount of capital, the value of the machinery and property of plaintiffs employed in the manufacture of articles of wood exempt from taxation under said Art. 207 of the Constitution. Defendants and appellees to pay costs of appeal.
Mr. Justice Breaux recuses himself.