Year: 1865

in , communication to the Dispatch OF th'
28th Of January say:-ln the last issue o
your paper over the name FLAX PAYER,
find a communication directed at myself, II
REGARD to bringing tax suits in the Distr'c'
court instead of Justice courts. Had Tax
Payer" given himself the trouble to have
looked a. the statute passed at the last ses
sion Of the Legislature, (Laws OF 1901
pace 399,) he would have saved himself the
trouble Of penning the communication, you
the labor Of printing it, and myself his
censure for simply doing what the law
compels ne to do.


The several acts Of the legislature in re-
card to tax suits, prior to the act of last ses'
sion, conferred jurisdiction upon justices
courts and empowered these courts to REM
der Judgment against the owners, and against
the real estate upon which the tax was levi
ed, hence, as long as that power in Justices
courts continued, District Attorneys brought
their action for taxes against both the own
er and the real property, in those courts
| But the Supreme Court in February last, IN
the case of the People vs.. Mier ct al. decided
that Justices courts had no Jurisdiction, un-
der the amended Constitution, to render
/ Judgment against the real estate, and that q
Judgment in justices court for taxes was
not lien upon the real estate OF the judg
meut debtor Hence the legislature, last
winter, in accordance with the views of the
Supreme Court, expressed in the case of the
People vs.. Mier ct al passed the act first re-
ierrel to, making tax suits, where the real
estate is made party, strictly proceedings
in equity, and directing all suits, where an
order for the sale Of the property is sought


to be brought in the District courts-these
courts alone having equity jurisdiction. BY
looking at the decision of the Supreme court
and the statute referred to "Tax.Payer" will
see have no choice in The matter In suits
in The District court judgment is sought and
rendered against both the owner and the
real estate charged With the tax, and an or~
der for the sale of the identical realty charg'
ed with the tax issues, and taxes precedence
over all other liens against the same proper
tY.


Suppose bring suit in Justices court to
recover taxes assessed against real estate, |
could obtain a Judgment against the owner,
but not against The real estate; the judgment
would be mere personal Judgment, nor
would it have preference over any other
judgment or lien. If the land was homes
stead could not sell it,; if it was mortgaged
ii would be sold subiectto the mortgage, for
by sueiog the ownef-not the property-I
would obtain no other RIGHT than if | had
sued the owner for private debt. Ny duty
as an officer compels me Is pursue that
course that will ensure the collection of the
tax, and when the tax is due on real estate, or
improvements on real estate, then, to ensure
the collection Of the tax, must sue the real
estate: and this, under the decision and statute
referred to, can only do in the District court
Were to sue for taxes due on real property
OF improvements, in Justices court, where
| could only obtain Il personal judgment
against the owner, and should fail to make
the tax by reason Of the realty being home,
stead, or encumbered, or the owner should
sell before execution is levied, or that the
owner had no property exempt from eXecu
tion, out of which to make the tax, | would
become undoubtedly liable on my official
bond for the tax, for the simple reason that,
had sued the realty, the Tax would have
been collected, no matter Now, or how much,
the property may bavo been encountered;
falling to pursue the property, whereby the
tax thereon is lost to the people, then such
loss is through my negligence, or by not pur-
suing the course pointed out by law, and |
thereby lay myself and bondsmen liable for
the tax.