Court Opinion

ID: 9832366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:51:42.303396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.140359
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insistently urged that we committed error in not sustaining the contention that all the parties were not before the court *250at the time of the rendition of this judgment, as required by article 7328, R. S.
Article 7326, R. S., provides, in cases of delinquent taxes, suits for the recovery of the taxes are required to be brought by the county attorney. It also provides that, “if ⅜ * * any tax due on any land owned by the defendant is omitted from such suit, such omission shall not be any defense against the collection of the tax due and sued for.”
However, article 7328 provides: • “The proper persons, including all record lien holders, shall be made parties defendant in such suit, and shall be served with process and other proceedings had therein as provided by law in ordinary foreclosure suits in the district courts of this state.”
They would not be affected, neither would the city, by leaving them out, if for no other reason than the plain language of said article 7326, because said omission would not be any defense from the collection of the taxes. But for the plain language of the statute, article 7328, mating that specific requirement, we would not bev inclined to adhere to that demand, since the right to recover the taxes is in nowise affected thereby.
Eor the foregoing reasons, we withdraw our holding, and reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause for another trial, hereby granting the motion for rehearing.