Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-12-12
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
Reasons Tor Holding a Club Not
'i'hle to Occupation Tax
SUNDAY FILED PAPERS ARE VALID
Whore Weeks Are Inciud,d In Time Al.
lowed Tor Filing l@por,aa, Par
I,ion Dec.s.on.
SUNDAY FILED PAPERS ARE yALI

from Travis county. Third distnol--
answered In ilvor Of appellee.
Appellee is social elub Incorporated
under the laws OF this State; and Its pur-
poses, as expressed In the charter are as
iohows' The encouragement OF social In
iereourse among Its members. the support
OF literary institutions and cultivation OF
literature, the maintenance OF library
and reading room. aud the promotion OF
line arts"
This suit was Instituted to recover $500,
alleged to be due by the club as occupu-
lion taxes for continuously engaging IN
The business OF selling splri;ueus, v.nous
ana malt liquors, and modlcatcd bltters
IN quantities less than one quart
The sale OF tie liquor 10 the members
OF the club. and 10 certain Invited guests,
vas not denied.
Cuoslion-under tho argued facts, was
ms Austin club engaged In the business
81 selling Hpiri,uous. vinoua anu matt
LIQUORS, etc. within the meaning OF the
Ill ihe court OF criminal appeals has de-
| iiheu the word Occupation as follows:
| Occupation. as used ia tnis atn,uto and
W Understood commonly, will signify "a
.9yhnoh, calling, tiauc--tac buslno. =
| fnlcn one ptinspully engages In 10 prv-
| euro living, or TO outain wealth. - I.
| y ~ not the sale OF liquor that constitutes
~ ouensei II Is tho engaging In tho bus
| mesa OF selling without paying the occu.
patton tax. Il does not require uyen n
ihngie sale 10 constitute the ouen,e. tor
a person may engage In the business wi h.
Of one sale.'' t2S, c. A. r., sss,)
IN tho case be,or uA no question Ia made
aw; Il Is therefore to be treated as a
bona nde club. formed for tho puTpos en-
oppressed IN It's charter.
| the question certified has boon ndludl-
/ GntDN bN me wOnftN of mumN k.utgp mud
| hose decisions are In conflict. hut We
believe that mo decided weight OF author
| ~ upon tho question supports the cnnclu-
| appeals.
The conditions Of a liquor dealers bond.
luict nnd orderly house. together with tlS
| proNlBions Of the statute defining what
ire open and aulei house,, and !he inr-
license IN public place, Indicate that
| he legislature Intended that the business
uf selling splrituouf vinous or mali liuuora
should be- conducted IN n public place.
| )Nen to all persons. Those provisions ara
! lnetrslsttnt with the idea That the lea =
)cnsing " liquors In the pflvute mann T
| shown by the facts OF this case, hut II
Hnows thut the business, ~ oNuresFCl Ia
| he article quoted, WAS Intended TO be a
| 1t sncss conducted IN q public nnnnt {,
ana In place TO which tile public would
nave free ncccss
ilso that the court of criminal amp ais
lins dccided "a similar question as above
indicated, We must answer the question
Harmony OF decision botwcon the two
courts OF last resort IN this state q I'M
| lortant aud should bn preserved when y
san he uron proper rrinelrles;. and In TO
,nae Of doubt would we be willing IN con.
iirt with the decision Of the court 81
atcd 10 mud Intimately connected with
he subjects Of its jurisdiction.
We call attention TO the fact that We
mot 1 ss,waen nrtcls Soda ana va
act OF tho Twelty..hlrh legislnture woo
he same subject. tsee laws TWeny-third
enislaiure. PAGE ND
Opinion by Brown, j.
A. A. g. MOORE ct nj vs.. FRANK. NJ
MOORE, OF al: partition suit, from Con
znlos county, Fourth Observation-Disclosures
plaintiffs In error instituted this suit fol
partition OF the rroporty belonging to th'
estate OF A. ], Moore, deceased, alleging
that It was the community property Of
A. ], Moore and NJ. A. G. Moore, his sec
md wife, who claimed onc-half OF th'
utoporty, aud that the other half belongct
in equal proportions to II, i. Moore IL
NJ Mooro and Llzzie and Virginia Merri
man. the children OF Martha Merriman
deceased, the daughter OF a, j. Moore.
Defendants dld not contest the clain
made In the petition. that the property
was the community property OF the &c
ceased ana ~; A. T. MOORE, Dut aiivRvu
Waa Indebted to them Ia the sum OF SldaJ
winch ha nhi cohccteu ~ thoT guaruIli
ana haa noe PAID over. ~ Mns ALSO a.
| eyed IA tno answer that thefo We're IA
| inner debts against tho estate.
l'nere was Il verdict IN favor OF NJ. a
, c. Moore for one-haif Of all the properly
. | the remaining one-hait 70 he diyldci
among the defendants. Inc Jury ais
/ founa in favor OF tha defendants tne sun
" IN aecordance with this verdict the cour
entered 1uutS ment, except tnat II uirectel
the homestead and personal properly, eN
empt by law, TO be BOT aside 70 the widow
This Judgment was reversed and rem
dercd by tho court OF civil appeals, omli
ting the part setting aside the h9inestea
nnd exempt properly 10 the WIDOW.
When the plnIntlns In error INSTITUTED
their suit asking that the property OF q
]. Moore DO partlione1. tney pi w nahi
against the estate and no necessity 10
! administration. for II there were sue
debts or necessity for sdminrs'f,htloh inS
Ing sought the Jurisdietion OF the court
| they ought not 20 ne hohru 70 Say WA
conditions existed when Mou'o W ~,
without allegation and proof OF such faell
:. Tho plaintiff. NJ. a. Moore was en-
titled. under &c eo5slit,n sa4 ,diring get h..
j. ilfciime Il she chose 10 hne and occupy
AZ such; but she had also the right
> abandon II as n homestead, when u woul
c become subject to PARTITION, az otner prog
4. erty Whom she Med this suit nakinB IN
: court 10 partition the estate lnolhdln
i The property claimed az homestead ~
h terwarda II was Il wiiver OF her rlEhi I
y use aud occupy II rs a homestead, an
i ITO court OF civil appeals. did not err
c denying her the right TO have the nome
/. stead and personal properly exempt ffoi
J, forced sale Get apart TO her use.
a 4 The facts show that 4. J. Moore wa
J. Indebted at HIS death TO =. NJ. f6o,s an
3 10 Ilzzie and Virginia Morrlmnn III u
Y sum Of $3.50. with interest, MS claimed b
\ them In this case the district court ha
u original Jurisdiction Ut the subject matte
IS az INC claim OF defendants against plain
= tiffs and II was simply a question Z
/ whether the matters. Were OF such Z chni
}. aeier a. could BE- adjudicatci IN the on
d mit. and not a question q ivrisdietio
az the court. II would be difficult TO IN
g er4ne a case IN which ~ would he MOI
y lnaoliltable TO turn psrtiea away RON N
y sotirt under such Circumstances, and
q tnrr over 10 the heirs property upo
Y which creditor, the defendants, equal
y intersated IN tho property, hnd Jus
q cain. for remuneration out OF the iient
u aai property itself. ,,
Ie The Judgment OF the court OF civil AZ
y meals II therefore affirmed.
{. opinion by Brown, j.
e HANOVER FIRE INSURANCE CON
D pANY W. SHRADEH A. RoOeKbi ms
Z lion 10 dismiss an implication Tor VI
q -. "a. IIQriFrnuu rOtIf