Court Opinion

ID: 9831283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:59:32.56971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.521205
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is urged that there is no proper service upon the nonresident defendants.
[6, 7] The citation in delinquent tax suits would not be under article 1874, Vernon’s Sayles’, as suggested by appellant, but article 5107 — 46 of 1918 Supplement Vernon’s Sayles’ controls as to citation in this case. The cited article provides, “and shall be served with process * * * as provided by law for suits of like character,” etc.— that is, suits for delinquent taxes. Now, article 7698, Vernon’s Sayles’ is the article providing for citation in suits against delinquents unknown or nonresident. There, if the owner is a nonresident of the state, he is cited by notice “directed to all persons owning or having or claiming any interest,” etc., and the citation in this case follows the statute. It was held in Earnest v. Glaser, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 378, 74 S. W. 605, that notice directed to the sheri££ or any constable instead of to all persons, as in the statute, was fatally defective. The citation in this character of suit, unlike citations in other suits under article 1874, ■need not state the file number of the suit (Unknown Owner v. State, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 300, 118 S. W. 803) nor date oí filing suit (Kenson v. Gage, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 547, 79 S. W. 606).
The publications hez’e need to be for only “one time a week for three consecutive weeks.” Same article provides that—
“Whether any party or parties make defense or not on the trial of said case, the state and county * * * shall have a decree for the sale of said land or lot as in those cases where defendant owners have been personally served and defend suit; and a sale of said land or lot shall be had and be as binding as where defendants were personally served with process.”
The nonresidents take no appeal, and neither they nor Wheat make objection as to the form of the judgment The evidence of Jack Sweatt was sufficient to put the record, as evidenced by Exhibit A, before the court as evidence. There it is shown by the tax rolls that Wheat rendered the lands in his own name as owner, the amount, the. year rendered, etc., and that tax remains due and unpaid. The law evidently' contemplates that taxes must be promptly paid, and gives such suits right of way in the courts.
The motion is overruled.