OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

QSRAWC. MANN 

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

Upon mmh refuea]: the Stuarda brought 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 cad the deoislon of the trial aourt was airlxmd.~ 

The Court held that under the 8tatute the State Comptroller*s 

regulatlonm requiring Tax Collootora to return to aooept taxes 

tendered althout the poll 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 without dispute under the Conatltution and 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 taxes he tendered to the Colleotor, 

and It is a very ramM.ar prlno%pal announce6 by ntmerou~) 

deoislona in tti6 State that a creditor le not bound to 

aooept a 8~ less than'that which la due from hfe debtor 

in Nl dieoharge or the debt, nor 18 a debtor under thorn 

deolelons entitled to an aoqultame upon a ten6er to 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 in which a petition r0r writ or 

error was denied by the Supreme Court, where the tax oollbotor 

demn&dm illegaltaxinadditlontothe ekouator tam6 

legally due,the Court saids 

n . ..sbeeatme a pait may have been illegal &a not relieve 

appellee fwm llabllity for' that part of the ~8-abmt 

uhfoh no objeotlon could be urged on the gnnm& that the 

levy or assesementu we8 invalid. In order to eaoape liablllty 

ror the Interest and penalties allowed by the statute, he 

should here 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 the amoxm 

the amount which it later pa%&, end had keptl3ia ten&e~'oo%~ Lb voulf 

not hare been liable for the penalty. See: state v. RonRan, 

201 S. 3. bss, by the Supreme court of Texas; ReseJ fr City Oi 

Tyler, 45 3. a. (sd) 559; erst l3atlonel Burk'0r Lmpaeaa t. Oltr 

of Laapaeaa. 78 S. W. 42; St. Leuie Southwestern Ry. 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 taxes whloh 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 

tendering an 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