Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-05
RAMSEY vs.. THE STATE.
Court of Appeals Opinion Settling the
Question OF Tax Collectors Fees.
The Collector Not Entitled to Double Costs and
Commissioned Decision Of
Much Interest
Special to the Gazette.

special to the Gazette.
AUSTIN, Ten, Dec. Following is
the opinion of the court of appeals in the
case of Ramsey ct all VS.. the State of
Texas, settling the much mooted Ques-
ton of tax collectors fees in cases where
the original owner redeems land sold
to the state for taxes. The court
double costs and commissions, and may
retain no more than the original amount
OF both due him. The decision is one of
much interest TO tax collectors through
out the state, and is given herewith.
j. s. Ramsey ct al, appellants, vs..
the State of Texas, appellee, No.
3092; from Travis county. The appel
liant was tax collector of Bexar county
As such be sold certain lands for taxes.
which was purchased by the state. The
state did not pay the collector his costs
or commissions. subsequently, the owner
redeemed the lands by paying 20 the COL
lector double the amount for which
they were sold. The tax collector
pad TO the state the amount
received after deducting double the
amount or his own costs and commits
sIous. The state contends that he was
entitled to obtain no more than the orig
inal amounts of costs and commissions
due him, and instituted this suit against
him and the suretIes on his official bond
TO re ever the excess. Judgment was
rendered in favor of the state, and de-
PENDANTS appealed. 1t is conteuded that
'tse state having received double the
amount of taxes for which the
land were sold has received its full share
OF the redemption money, and the costs
never having been paid by it, constituted
no part of the purchase money paid by
the state for the lands at tax sale, but
the costs in so far as they became part
OF the purchase money, having been
contributed by appellant, he was entitled
to retain pro tauto the redemption money
paid him on account Of his costs, the
cent per cent thereon being his
compensation for delay in receiving his
share of the purchase money COSTS.
When an individual purchases land at
tax sale. he must bid and pay to the col
lector sum sufficient to pay the taxes
and the cost due the officer. In the case
of Dean VS.. the State "a Texas it was
decided by this court that when the
state becomes. the purchaser, the
statute does not intend "that
the fees and costs shall, in
the first instance, be advanced
by the state - 1t is there said that:
''When the lands bid in shall have been
redeemed by the owner, the previously
unpaid fees and costs, and which are in
cluded in the price OF the redemption,
Will be held by the state for the col
lector. II, however, the lands shall not
be redeemed by the owner, then it would
rest in the wisdom Of the legislature to
provide some mode of compensation for
him. The law seems to place the
state, so far as Its being purchaser is
aud its right to the redemp-
ton money paid by the owner,
in the same position that
any other purchaser might occupy.
No provision is made for the officer to
receive interest or double costs and fees.
The decision above referred TO makes a
difference in respect to costs
and fees due the officer, between pur-
chase by the state and an individual,
with regard to the collection Of, but not
as 10 the amount of such costs and fees.