League v. State of Texas

Decision Date29 January 1902
Docket NumberNo. 137,137
Citation46 L.Ed. 478,184 U.S. 156,22 S.Ct. 475
PartiesJ. C. LEAGUE, Plff. in Err. , v. STATE OF TEXAS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On August 6, 1898, the state of Texas filed a petition in the district court of San Augustine county, Texas, averring that the defendant was justly indebted to the state of Texas and the county of San Augustine in the sum of $1,305.87, on account of taxes, interest, penalties, and costs due on certain described lands for the years 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1894, 1895, and 1896. The prayer was for a recovery of the taxes, interest, etc., and for a decree establishing and enforcing a lien upon the several tracts for the amounts found due upon each. An answer was filed and a trial had, which resulted, on September 9, 1889, in a finding that there was due the state the amount claimed for taxes, atc., a decree that the state recover the amount thereof from the defendant, and adjudging a lien upon the several tracts therefor, and directing a foreclosure and sale. On appeal to the court of civil appeals the decree was modified by striking out the taxes of 1884, all penalties and the personal judgment against the defendant, leaving the decree to stand as a finding of the amount due for taxes subsequent to the year 1884, interest and costs, and a foreclosure of a lien therefor upon the several tracts. This modification reduced the amount of the recovery to $1,232.77, with interest at 6 per cent from September 9, 1899, the date of the decree in the district court. On error to the supreme court of the state the decree of the court of civil appeals was affirmed (93 Tex. 553, 57 S. W. 34), whereupon this writ of error was sued out.

Mr. F. Charles Hume for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. D. E. Simmons and C. K. Bell for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

In 1897 the legislature of Texas passed an act for the collection by judicial proceedings of delinquent taxes upon real estate. Texas Gen. Laws 1897, chap. 103, p. 132. The contention of the defendant, now plaintiff in error, is that prior thereto the collection of taxes was enforced by an administrative sale made by the collector of taxes after January 1 of the succeeding year; that the state's lien for taxes was merged in the estate passed or vested by that sale; that the status of the rights of the state or other purchaser was fixed by the sale, and must depend upon the legality of the title acquired under the collector's deeds, and that any right of a purchaser at such sale, whether state or private individual, to revive or continue any lien for taxes must depend upon some statute existing at the time of the sale; and that, hence, this act of the legislature providing for the collection of delinquent taxes by judicial proceedings was a violation of the constitutional guaranty of due process in so far as it avoided the legal effect of the prior administrative sale and directed a further and judicial sale with the rights attending thereon.

There is no pretense that the taxes levied for these several years were invalid, or that the proceedings up to and including the collector's sale were irregular. On the contrary, the delinquent tax record in evidence, duly certified and filed, which by § 3 of the act is made prima facie evidence of the regularity of all prior proceedings and also that the amount of the tax against any real estate is a true and correct charge, showed taxes due as found by the court. It does not appear that the lands were assessed to the defendant, or that he was the owner of them at the time of the early assessments. Indeed, he alleges in his answer that he acquired title about the year 1889, but does not allege that this title was from the state. Apparently he had purchased from some individual who claimed title. His argument assumes that the taxes had not been paid, and that the lands had been sold by the collector to the state. The case, therefore, presented is one of a party, admitting that valid taxes have been duly levied on his property and have not been paid, who is contesting the manner in which the state shall collect them, and insisting that the only method which it can adopt for such collection is one which has hitherto proved ineffectual.

That a state may adopt new remedies for the collection of taxes, and apply those remedies to taxes already delinquent, without any violation of the Federal Constitution, is not a matter of doubt. A delinquent taxpayer has no vested right in an existing mode of collecting taxes. There is no contract between him and the state that the latter will not vary the mode of collection. Indeed, generally speaking, a party has no vested right in a mere matter of remedy; that is subject to legislative change. And a new remedy may be resorted to unless in some of its special provisions a constitutional right of the debtor or obligor is infringed. 'There is no vested right in a mode of procedure. Each succeeding legislature may establish a different one, providing only that in each are preserved the essential elements of protection.' Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co. 169 U. S. 557, 570, 42 L. ed. 853, 859, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 445, 450. That in the new remedy in the case at bar, as well as in the change from the old to the new, there was no violation of the Constitution of the State of Texas, is for us settled by the decisions of its highest court. West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507, 12 L. ed. 535; Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co. 125 U. S. 555, 31 L. ed. 795, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 974;Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 41 L. ed. 683, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305; Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685, 41 L. ed. 1165, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 718.

Defendant further contends that interest, expenses, and costs are included in the new remedy by judicial proceedings which were not provided for by the prior statutes in reference to collector's sales. The court of civil appeals and the supreme court of the state dealt with this question in these ways. The latter, in its opinion, quoted the following averment from the sworn answer of the defendant:

'And for answer in this behalf, defendant denies all and singular the allegations of plaintiff's petition; and further answering, defendant shows that he purchased the lands described in plaintiff's petition and exhibits about the year 1889; that said lands have been sold by the collector of taxes of San Augustine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Waits v. Black Bayou Drainage Dist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 16, 1939
    ...... compliance with the forms of law required in the assessment. and imposition of state and county taxes is well settled in. numerous decisions of this court and unless complied with. ...Dr. Comrs., Leflore County, 99 Miss. 555; Secs. 4437 and. 4438 and 4526, Code of 1930; League v. Texas, 46. L.Ed. 478; Kersh Lake Dr. Dist. v. State Bank & Trust Co., 92. F. 783. . . ......
  • Diamond Match Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 7.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 29, 1938
    ...inhibition of the Federal Constitution merely because the statute which imposed it made it retroactive in its operation. League v. Texas, 184 U.S. 156, 22 S.Ct. 475, 46 L.Ed. 478; Winona & St. P. Land Co. v. Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526, 16 S.Ct. 83, 40 L.Ed. 247; Kentucky Union Company v. Commo......
  • Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com'n, s. 33
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • October 15, 1987
    ......, if given the construction propounded by the appellants, would violate both the federal and state constitutions. They assert that if not allowed to recover from ratepayers prudently incurred costs ...v. Kentucky, 219 U.S. 140, 31 S.Ct. 171, 55 L.Ed. 137 (1911); League v. Texas, 184 U.S. 156, 22 S.Ct. 475, 46 L.Ed. 478 (1902); Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 6 S.Ct. ......
  • City of Newark v. Yeskel, A--143
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 27, 1950
    ...... challenged on many occasions on the ground that they violate the due process clause of the state and Federal constitutions, Const. 1947, art. 1, par. 1; U.S.Const.Amend. 14, the courts have ... In League v. Texas, 184 U.S. 156, 22 S.Ct. 475, 476, 46 L.Ed. 478 (1902), the court said: 'That a state may ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT