The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-04-26
i Of IMPORTANCE
A. slc. League VS.. The State
,,siIpt ID Supreme Court.
= 4 The DELINQUENT TAX ACT
!, the suit, which Was
~ -" nrourht in San Angus
notpty for Back Taxes.

~ p~ourht in San Angus
county for Back Taxes.
\. r.xas. April 25.--The case OF
y. -. vs. the state of Texas, in
q supreme court has granted a
- ~, and which has been set for
Il more than passing Importance
III as the validity of the colquitt
,.x act is questioned therein. 4
as originally brought against
!, The district court of San Au-
,,urtv under the provisions OF
4 IA 81 the general laws of 1897 to
s.ts and county taxes alleged to
~ assessed and due on eighteen
,racty Of land in San Augustine
4, the years from 1884 to 1896
1. IA also to recover per cent
,,rurp interest and 10 per cent penal
IA taxes, together with the cost
,arg and publishing the deiinduent
..,,,d etc and costs Of suit;and also
4. establishment and foreclosure of
,a,sea lien for said taxes, interest,
4, costs and making and publishing
plruent tax record, etc, and costs
N and Judgment was rendered In
sihe state. Said judgment estab-
M foreclosed a lien on each of
..,ris Of land for the amount OF
|, interest and costs adjudged against
,-set respectively and directed an
# sale commanding the officer to
M land as under execution and to
NJ uurchasers in possession within
aiys after the sale, providing also
!, execution ever should issue against
a,sndsrts In case the lands did not
he sums sufficient to satisfy the
bat.
.rs perfected an appeal to the court
I'd appeals OF the First supreme jul
district and said court, holding that
BIZ aid not authorize the enforcement
hu the 10 per cent penalty or the
iY the year 1854 and that the law
bot authorize a personal judgment
s he defendant, reformed the judy
Il the district court in said particu-
md rendered judgment in rem, sew
tgalnst each tract of land for its
s;lye amount OF the taxes. interest
msis and jointly against all of the
ior the amount OF the printers,
ind collectors fees; and said judg-
also established and foreclosed
against each tract for its respective
bit d taxes, interest, and costs
lga against such tract and lien
EilTely against all of said tracts for
rouli Of the fees, and directed sale
sar execution accordingly. AS thus
ned the Judgment Of the district
vas affirmed.
ue fled a motion for rehearing and
|eurt Of civil appeals handed down q
snsrlal opinion further reforming
augment and directing that the writ
session should not issue Hereunder
Nnoi Of two years from date OF
ma until further orders of the
court, and in all other respects
alns said motion.
sues application for writ OF error,
nis'eeen granted, contains the fol-
suggestions OF error:
iR court Of civil appeals has fallen
KY y IS submitted, in holding that
lenapter lOS, general laws Of 1897
Slca this suit is brought, does
AlO'iie personal judgment against
sa'r ior tne taxes due upon the land,
laofming the judgment OF the
Mt 10 pursuance of such ruling
'aasi'hg judgment in rem, and re-
~ remand the case so that the
w. owner could be brought into
.as augment for the taxes rendered
such delinquent.
~ s.s va court erred in holding that
VAspter lOS, general laws TWEEN
sslsature)does not require suit
rs brought against the delinouent
n. .4va .ne taxes were assessed and
wv IVY Of appeals erred in affirming
suen. and refusing to remand
a, y 'nat necessary parties could
o N WA court erred in holding that
\, enumerated provisions o.
w. general laws of 1897 ara NOT
ams and void, to-wit:
4. ~ provision OF section 6 OF said
,r,, as IS It authorizes the entry
49,, W per cent per annum in
!. -Aes claimed in this case which
ID 1aVWn by the records were as
~ s,s aue and delinquent before said
~, sascled and at a period when The
M nj SIs'e provided for an annual
,Is-i. sag OF land for taxes. and did
M aaa exemption of interest.
! eD.,,,p DIVISIONS of said act (chapter
s.li, saws OF 1880 which impose
y. auguent taxpayer, and on his
Il. ~ charges not authorized by
o taxes. w 'eNy and assess
i d s,s. court erred In holding that
4 NM OF the collection of the
1rsi i,r imposed by chapter 103 of
,stro ,sSS q the Twenty fifth legis-
i /. s,ss, sl and after the taxes
4 ns S,asl The taxpayer or against
r.orpsv,. 'ne nomenclature OF in
4 .I.,ss.y fees, county clerks fees.
'' ~. lees and publishers fees
4 ~ ,ng OF appellants property
HI !, process OF law and the anpel.
H. u, ,, erred in affirming the judg-
\ N In. nal court allowing Interest
!. ii. s ss collectors fees. county
u h ss lrs publishers fees in a suit
!. III .sa were due before said act
l. til asse charges was adopted.
MI .a. court erred in oyerruIing
4 \. bol ssseial demurrer and by it's
Is ' s,Ig the act Of the leglsla.
IL, s !, Of Texas (chapter 1os.
rs rev. me State of Texasl is not
h A. ' Uss, law. and as an at.
M pMt Of the State OF TEXAS
p,os sss0perty Of Its citizens with
p ss q law. by bringing suit
! ''ssssssssesoeoeseos