The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-02-04
iTERESTING TAX SUIT.
", owners Not Necessary Parties In
q Suit for Back Taxes.
J STATE CAN WAIVE PREVIOUS SALE
u. an. for All Delinquent Taxes
4 penalties Not Authorized In
Case of Suit.

,..on February 3.---The following
~, concerning several interesting
Il. With relation to the collection OF
s.,r.nt taxes by judicial proceedings
Is.en rendered by the court OF civil
~. First supreme judicial district OF
4, Galveston, in the case OF j.
,x.rus VS.. The state OF Texas, from
Augustine county:
5r,,s was suit brought by the State
rsras against ]. C. League for the re-
rsrv 81 the delinquent taxes upon cer-
,.,a situated in San Augustine coun-
rha suit was brought under chapter
!, Inc General Laws OF 1897 Up. 1922
/. ,hs taxes assessed against the land
ia year 1896 and other years as to
~ Of the tracts Of land, and Judgment
rendered in favor Of the State for
.ggrsgate amount OF the taxes for all
IA wears, together with a penalty OF
per cent thereon, interest aud costs.
IN delinquent list for San Augustine
UNITY was properly made up in accord
kss'with the law and embraced the lands
{svibed in the Judgment, and all neces-
~ steps were taken as prescribed by
law IN order to maintain the suit. The
kInouept tax record showed that the
8,as had been assessed as set out in the
khlblt attached to the petition, which
knsars also In the statement OF facts. II
baeared that the surveys upon which
4 taxes we're sought to be recovered had
IN assessed for certain of the years as
J property OF unknown owners and for
Iber years as the property OF certain In
trIduals other than the defendant, all OF
|hich Is particularly shown by the ex-
Ebii which IL referred to as part OF this
5stement None OF the surveys were as
ssed as the property of the defendant
N from the year 1883 they were assessed
he property OF unknown owners with
h or Two exceptions. The defendant be-
Inc the owner Of the lands in 1889 and
Is ths owner thereof when the suit was
bought The several surveys were I'D
n ths taxes of 1884 and were bought bS
"a SAFE. Appellant contends that It was
b proved that he was the owner OF tn;
IND. IL Is allNc Audl IL uVSo NV nPfSHa
the statement OF facts that he was, but
bare was no motion for new trial fol-
10 want OF proof OF such fact. 1t was in
way called to the attention OF thu
burt below, and the objection Is urgec
krs now for the first time. 1t was also
admitted fact on the trial of the case
be statute requires the pleadings OF tht
Eiepdant, except those of law. to be veri-
ID BY the affidavit of the defendant. hi
Gent or attorney. The answer of the
Efendant verified by the affidavit OF hi:
iorney Of record SHOWS that he claims u
Tu Tho lards by purchase since about thu
bar 1859, While it is true that genera
Fniil was pleaded by the defendant thu
urrose 81 the statute in requiring thu
leadings to be sworn to is to have tn
he issues in the case presented. and tbs
omission OF the defendant in his sworr
swtr that he is the owner Of the lan'
Pviated the necessity OF proving thai
$n Computed separately the severa
FHs adjudged as taxes. interest, penal
Is and costs separating the year lSS.
POM all the other years which are stateC
/ thu apNrppatn arc ne follows.