Court Opinion

ID: 9828567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:30:01.506964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:50.482831
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
After careful consideration of appellants’ motion for rehearing, it is determined that all conclusions originally announced should be adhered to, except the holding that the proof did not show the amount awarded them below in reimbursement for payments they had made on taxes for the years 1909 to 1913, inclusive, to have been in satisfaction of a lien therefor upon the land. They alleged in their pleadings that they had paid taxes, interest, and costs, levied and charged against the property—
“in the sums for the years and upon the dates, as follows: On May 20, 1910, taxes for the year 1909 in the sum of $65.16. On May 11, 1912, taxes for the years 1910 and 1911, in the sum of $133.63. On December 28, 1912, taxes for the year 1912, in the sum of $113.40. On December 21, 1913, taxes for the year 1913, in the sum of $139.86.”
Mr. Lewis, one of the appellants, then testified without objection that they started paying taxes after their purchase of the property at tax sale, and paid them, as shown in the pleadings, until this suit was filed, when they quit; the record discloses nothing to the contrary.
[6] We now conclude that, in the absence of any objection to this method of proving the payment of taxes, or of their constituting a valid lien against the land, we erred in holding it insufficient. The portion of our farmer judgment reversing and remanding the cause for further hearing upon the tax payments will accordingly be set aside, and the trial court’s judgment for money in favor of appellants will be affirmed, with this modification: They were awarded the sum of $1,266.67, with interest at 6 per cent, per an-num from that date until paid, but this total included, in addition to the principal sum for taxes, an aggregate of $58 as costs in the tax suit, for which amount the record affirmatively shows the land to have been sold. This itemized bill for such costs being attached to and made part of the order of sale:
Bill oi Coste.
Clerk’s costs:
Docketing ...$ 20
Filing . 45
Entering appearances. 30
Issuing citations . 4 50
Entering judgment. 1 00
Executing alias and return.1 50
Taxing costs . 25
Affidavits .1 50'
$9 70
Sheriff's costs:
Serving citations .$2 25
Jury fee . 50
Mileage ....'.1 50
Total .$4 25
Attorney’s fees .$15 00
Recapitulation of costs as per original order of
Clerk .$ 9 70’
Sheriff . 4 25
Attorney . 15 05
Total .$29 05
Costs which accrued on original order of sale which was ordered returned hy the clerk on account of an error therein:
Levy..$1 00
4 notices. 4 00-
Posting .1 00
Return . 60
Total .$6 60-
Sheriff's costs on alias order of sale.$ 9 00
Sheriff's commission on alias order of sale.... 12 00
District clerk's costs on alias order of sale.... 1 50
Grand total of above costs.$58 00
[7] In our original opinion we held $8 of this $58 for costs illegal, rendering the tax sale invalid, but declined to go further and hold that the amounts which might properly be charged and collected as costs in a suit for taxes of the character here involved should be determined by article 7691, Vernon’s Sayles’ Statutes. Upon reconsideration, we conclude that the costs specified in that article, except as modified or changed by Houston’s City Charter, should have been applied in this instance, and that, as is therein provided, no greater charge than $1.50 for the district clerk’s services “in the' case” and $1 for the sheriff “for selling and making deed to the purchaser” were legally collectible. From this it results that the clerk should have been allowed $1.50 only in lieu of the $9.70, $6.50, and $1.50 items appearing in the bill, and the sheriff $1 in lieu of the $12 commission on the sale. These deductions take a total of $27.20 from, the $58 actually collected as costs, to which $27.20 should be added 6 per cent, interest thereon per annum from the date of the tax sale, March 1, 1910, to the date of the money judgment in favor of appellants in this suit, March 13, 1918, yielding a final credit of $40.30, which should come off of the $1,266.67 awarded them. The judgment in their favor will therefore be reduced to $1,226.37,. and, as so reformed, will be in all respects-*655affirmed, bearing interest and carrying the lien on the land as before.
[8] As to the attorney’s fee of $15 appearing in the cost bill, we think the 5 per cent, allowed for that purpose in city tax suits under section 8 of the Houston Oity Charter (Special Laws 29th Leg. pp. 148, 149) superseded the provisions of article 7691, which we have held otherwise applicable. It is true that article 7691 does not in terms cover any but state and county taxes, but other sections of the same law indicate, we think, that it was intended to be applied in city tax suits also. See the sections of the.Houston City Charter referred to in our former opinion, and articles 7693 and 7699, Vernon’s Sayles’ Statutes; Hill v. Lofton, 165 S. W. 67.
To the extent stated, the motion is granted, and the trial court’s judgment for money in favor of appellants reformed and affirmed as herein indicated, but in- all other respects it is refused, and this court’s former judgment is left unchanged.
Granted in part, and the trial court’s judgment reformed and affirmed.