Court Opinion

ID: 9833412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:41:34.701233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.210824
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
If it should be conceded that (because of article 1096, R. S. 1925) this court erred in holding that appellant could not maintain a suit to set aside the ordinances adopted by appellee referred to in the opinion affirming the judgment, a correction of the error would not require a change in the disposition made of the appeal. The difference between the pleadings and facts of this case and those in the case of Simms v. City of Mt. Pleasant, 12 S.W.(2d) 833, decided by this court at the time (to wit, October 18, 1928) this one was decided, is that in this case the assessment was for a greater sum ($1,040.76), and appeared to be against property owned by the appellant, Tabb, which constituted his homestead. The difference does not render inapplicable what was said by Judge Hodges in the opinion overruling the motion for a rehearing in that case. For reasons stated in that opinion and as applicable here, the motion for a rehearing in. this case is overruled.