Case Name: John Ireland v. John W. Gordon; A. W. Dibrell et al. v. John W. Gordon
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1873
Citations: 39 Tex. 253
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Ireland v. John W. Gordon. A. W. Dibrell et al. v. John W. Gordon.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
John Ireland v. John W. Gordon. A. W. Dibrell et al. v. John W. Gordon.
It is illegal to collect of the taxpayer five per cent, uppn his tax for commissions to the justice for making the assessment under Sec. 30 of “ An act to give effect to the several provisions of the Constitution concerning taxes,” approved twenty-second of April, 1871.
Appeal from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. Henry Maney.
These were injunction cases to restrain the collection of seven-eighths of the one per cent, school tax, and five cents per hundred dollars frontier bond tax, and the five per cent, upon the assessment for justices’ commissions.
The petitions contained the usual averments, alleging the illegality of the claim for more than one-eighth of one per cent, school tax, and of the-frontier bond tax, and of the claim for five per cent: upon the assessment for commissions, claimed under Section 30 of “ An act to give effect to the several provisions of the Constitution concerning taxes,” approved twenty-second of April, 1871.
The defendant pleaded a general denial not under oath.
The motion to dissolve was heard in chambers, by brief, '""before Henry Maney, judge of the Twenty-second Judicial District, and who had granted the preliminary injunction.
The judge, on second.of May, 1872, dissolved the injunction and adjudged costs against the petitioners and securities on the injunction bonds.
On the third of June, in term time, the cases were dismissed by the court.
The decision of these cases was not rendered until after the other school tax cases were disposed of, and the only . additional point considered appears in the opinion.
John Ireland, for plaintiff in error.
No counsel for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Walker, J.
There is a peculiarity in these cases, upon which we must reverse the judgment of the District ' Court.
• We know of no authority for assessing the appellants with five per cent, commissions. It is unnecessary here "to notice any other question presented on these records.
The judgments of the District Court are reversed; and -so far as the collections of the five per cent, commissions ds concerned, the injunctions are perpetuated.
Reversed and reformed.