OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

AUSTIN

QSRAWC.MANN r--u‘Honorable Ceorg Ii.Sheppard,Page 2

Upon mmh refuea]: the Stuardabrought su.$t e&n& the Tax Colleetor to cbtdn a writ of mandnmus aommandlng the Tax Colleotor to reosive the amount 80 tendered. The writ mm denled 

### cadthe 

### deoislon of thetrialaourt

### wasairlxmd.~ The Court held thatunder the 8tatutethe State Comptroller*s regulatlonm requiringTax Collootorato return to aooept taxes tenderedalthout thepoll tax on the tax 

### payer’s uiXe was a valid 

### regulation. The Court ln said ease, speakl~ through Chler 

### Juuotloe

Conner,eaid rurtlmr: *The racte here ahaw

### withoutdispute under the Conatl

### tutionand lawe'thet the entire tax asse8ead @alaat and due frcm the 

### rdatorm, 3. B. stuard and tire, use $l.rn. more than the amount of taxeshe tendered to the Colleotor, and It is **a very**  ramM.ar prlno%pal announce6by ntmerou~) **deoislona** in tti6 State that a creditor le not bound to aooept a 8~ less than'thatwhich la due from hfe debtor in Nl dieohargeor the debt, nor 18 a debtorunder thorn deolelons entitled to an aoqultame upon a 

### ten6erto hi8 oreilltor

or colleoting

### qent or en amount lees than 16 due Won hl&"
fn the aeee oi State v. Fulmre, 11 8. 8. 48, by the 

### oourt or Civil appeal*, but inwhich a petition r0r

### writor error was 

### deniedby the **Supreme Court,**  where the tax 

### oollbotor **demn&dm** illegaltaxinadditlontothe ekouator tam6 legally due,the Court saids

n

...sbeeatmea paitmay have been illegal &a not relieve appellee fwm llabllity for'thatpart of the 

### ~8-abmt uhfoh no objeotlon couldbe urged on the gnnm& that the levy 

### or assesementuwe8 invalid. In order to eaoape liablllty ror the Interest and penalties allowed by the statute,he shouldhere terrdered the eaount of taxea legally due:"
Of oop~ae, it the Texas &Bar Orleans Rallroa~ zx had before February '1,~1939,tendered all ai 

### theamoxm the amount which it later pa%&, end had keptl3iaten&e~'oo%~ Lb voulf not hare been liable for the penalty. See: statev. RonRan, 201 S. 3. bss, by the Supreme court of Texas; ReseJ fr City Oi Tyler, 45 3. a. (sd) 559; erst l3atlonelBurk'0r Lmpaeaa t. Oltr of Laapaeaa. 78 S. W. 42; St. Leuie SouthwesternRy. Co. of l'exae v. Indepemlent Sobgo ,D%strieb, SO S. W'i(26).

9C&Honorable Oborge A. Sheppard, Page S

But It Is rqually true that when the tax payer tenders M amount in rd. payment 0r all his taxes, *oh amount 18 less than the amount of taxeswhloh he owea, ruoh tender Ia not‘etteotIve and ehbuld not be oonrdderea in deternilnlng the anwunt or the wty to be aharged.ag&ut him. ThIe me, In addltlon to belne, mpgorted by the authorities,la a very reasonable and logloal rule, the purposcr or whIoh la to prevent a tax payer from tenderingan amount a little ahart of the total amount du, In the hop@ that It will he aoaepted in full payment, and dth the kuowled&a that if it is not eacepted, the penalty will bo on the mount abwe the amount of the tender only; and In the event It Is aoaepted as part payment , oolleotlon will probably not be made of the amall balanoe. It Is esaentlal 

### ror the oolle~tioa of taxes that the tax oolleotor 

### not be placed In thin oompramIslng position. HOPine that this anmer8 your queetlon. we are Very truly yours AcTOI@iXY

OltBERAL

OF TEXAB 

### BY D. D. Mahon

ASEXSTMT