Case Name: Francis Bros. v. J. J. Robinson et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1905-10-19
Citations: 40 Tex. Civ. App. 328
Docket Number: 
Parties: Francis Bros. v. J. J. Robinson et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 328–328

Head Matter:
Francis Bros. v. J. J. Robinson et al.
Decided October 19, 1905.
Injunction — Judgment for License Tax.
An injunction will not lie to restrain the enforcement of a judgment for a city license tax on the ground that the judgment was void because the ordinance forming the basis of the action was penal and had never been published.
Appeal from the District Court of Smith. Tried below before Hon. R. W. Simpson.
E. P. Price, for appellants.
R. P. Dorough, for appellee.
— Even though the ordinance was not published, as required by law for penal ordinances, that fact could only affect a criminal prosecution, and, though not published, it created a civil liability on the part of appellants to the city of Tyler, and for that reason the judgment was not void, and in a suit to recover the amount of the license fees from appellants the issue of publication vel non was immaterial and irrelevant.

Opinion:
GILL, Chief Justice.
— The city of Tyler sued the firm of Francis Bros, to recover $105 as a license tax due by them under one of the city ordinances. On appeal from the Justice to the County Court the city recovered judgment for $38. The defendants did not appeal from that judgment. Thereupon execution was issued and levied on a mule belonging to Francis Bros. They brought suit to enjoin the sale and avoid the levy on the ground that the ordinance forming the basis of the city's suit was penal in its nature, had never been published, and that the judgment was therefore void. A temporary injunction was issued, which, on final hearing, was dissolved, and Francis Bros, have appealed.
They still insist on the right to injunction for the reason stated above. We are of opinion the judgment on which the execution issued was not void, and that the court did not err in refusing to enjoin the sale. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.