Court Opinion

ID: 9829261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:08:24.077002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.198627
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee has filed a motion for rehearing in which he asserts that we were in error in holding that he had failed to prove that he had substantially performed his duty in making up the delinquent tax record supplement. He cites us to the testimony of ap-pellee to the effect that he had made up the delinquent tax supplement roll for the years 1920 and 1921; had certified to it; had had it approved; and had checked and verified it.
If that had been the only testimony from appellee on this subject, the position of appel-lee .would be well taken, but we also fihd the following testimony from him as to what he did in making up the delinquent roll: “I made two copies of the delinquent tax rolls. I would first get from our block book what we called a skeleton sheet, and arrange the property according to the abstract numbers, that is the land, for the yeai-s it was delinquent; and if it was city property, we would arrange it according to towns, alphabetically I believe ' it was; and 'then we would divide the taxes into State ad valorem, State school, State pension, and- then the County ad valorem, the school, county road, and when we got this skeleton completed we would check it against our block books of all delinquent stuff; and then made two copies of this on our permanent record, dividing the taxes in a similar manner, giving each piece of property a line to itself, and showing the years the property was delinquent; and after we got this compiled we got it approved by the Commissioners’ Court, and then mailed it to the State Comptroller at Austin; and he would check and approve them, and return one copy to me for my office pennanent record, and keep the other one. Upon this copy in our office I would isstfe notices to the delinquent tax payers and mail them out, as I have already explained.”
The above testimony shows what was done by appellee in making up the delinquent tax roll, and certainly fails to show that he ever made any check of the records of district court or the county clerk’s office.
If appellee’s testimony that he had checked and verified the delinquent tax supplement roll had the effect contended for now by ap-pellee, then this evidence certainly contradicts and casts suspicion upon it.
With this further explanation of the facts, the- motion will be overruled.