The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-02-04

covered by the delinquent taxes. II Is
clear from a reading Of the act that only
the owner or person claiming The LAM at
the time the suit Is brought should he a
party defendant. tt
The land upon which the foreclosure is
sought had previously been sold TO the
state for the taxes assessed against II for
the year 1884. While section OF the act
requires list made OF all land sold fol-
taxes since January /. 1885. other sections
OF the act show that collection is only TO
be made OF taxes due or assessed after
January 1. 1885, But, although a sale OF
the land for the taxes OF 1854 had been
made, 1t had not become absolute. Tho
law under which the sale was made al
lowed the owner two years in which to re-
deem 1t by paying double the amount OF
the taxes. penalties and costs. Sayles' re-
vised statutes (lS7s), articles 4759, 475S
Subsequent acts OF several legislatures
were passed extending the time for re
demption BY section 10 OF the act now
under consideration any delinquent tax
payer or any one having an interest In
the land sold for taxes is allowed to re-
deem the same by paying TO the collector
all taxes due thereon since January /, 1855.
with interest at the rate OF per cent per
annum and all costs and a penalty OF IL
per cent upon the taxes. the penalty, how
ever, being In force only upon taxes &C
cruing subsequent to the passage OF the
act. In providing for the collection OF the
taxes by suit and foreclosure the State
waived, as 1t might do, the forfeiture of the
land by sale and demanded only the taxos
to be assessed theron FOR the years sutse-
quent to the sale and Interest and costs
II could assert its lien for the taxes OF
subsequent years. (Maserson VS.. State
AZ s. w, 1908; Conklin vs.. FL Paso, "A s..
W., SS3; Traylor VS.. State, 46 S. w, 81;
Clarke VS.. Strickland, Fed Cases, 9S4 !;
S. c., Curt 43g; Hodgden VS.. Burleigh.
4 Fed. Rep, 1ll.)
In Masterson vs, State. SUPRA decided by
the court OF civil appeals for the Fourth
district, and in which writ OF error was
refused by the supreme court 1t was held
that although a sale of the land had been
previously made the lien continued to exist
and might be foreclosed. That suit seems
10 have been for the taxes for which the
land had been sold. aud not as in this case
OF Traylor VS.. State, supra. But the sale
In the first place was not an absolute sale
and 1t has always been the policy OF the
State to extend the time for redemption of
lands. and never to acquire them for, itself.
1t had the right to waive the forfeiture,
which would become absolute by the lapse
of time and permit redemption upon con-
4 dition that the owner would pay all taxes
/ for, the years subsequent, and it had the
right to enforce this condition by a slit
for foreclosure, no personal judgment being
authorized against the owner. For the
same reason the State In waving its claim
of forfeiture might impose as a condition
CT redemption the payment of legal inter-
est on the taxes assessed against the land,
although there was no Law in force at the
time the taxes We're laid providing for the
collection of interest thereon. The lands
were forfeited to the sta by the sale for
the taxes in 1884, the forfeiture to become
absolute in two years. The offer OF the
State Is to waive this forfeiture and re-
store the land to the owner II he will only
pay the taxes acrrung since then and c
per cent interest thereon, together with
the costs which had been incurred in maxi
Ing the sale and In making up the delin-
quent lists and OF the suit. The State has
waived its right OF forfeiture on condition
that the taxes with interest and costs
shall be enforced against the land. Thi,
u might do. (Conklin VS.. Ell Paso, supra
AS above stated. the law did not author
lie the collection in this suit OF the penalty
prescribed in section 10 OF the act: nor did
1t authorize a recovery for the taxes o.
1884. While the iudgmen. recites the State
shall recover OF the defendant the amount
adjudeed It provides that there shall hc
no personal execution against him. Thu
Judgment Of the court below will be re.
formed so as to omit the taxes for 1884
and all penalties and to show no persona
recovery against the defendant for tn.
amount of the taxes. interest and cost.
adJudeed to be due and thus reformed viii
be affirmed Reformed and affirmed.
c. c. Garrett.
T.