Hereford Independent School Dist. v. Jones, (No. 1114-5375.)

• Decision Date: 05 February 1930
• Docket Number: (No. 1114-5375.)
• Citation: 23 S.W.2d 690
• Parties: HEREFORD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. JONES et ux.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 690

23 S.W.2d 690

HEREFORD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. JONES et ux.

(No. 1114-5375.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

February 5, 1930.

Certified Questions from Court of Civil Appeals of Seventh Supreme Judicial District.

Action by the Hereford Independent School District against J. S. Jones and wife. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals to the Court of Civil Appeals, which certifies question for answer. Question answered in accordance with opinion.

Travis M. Dameron, of Hereford, for appellant.

Carl Gilliland, of Hereford, for appellees.

LEDDY, J.

The Court of Civil Appeals for the Seventh District presents the following certificate and question:

"The plaintiff, Independent School District, sued the defendants Jones and wife, to recover delinquent taxes, together with interest, penalty and costs. The taxes, though properly assessed, were unpaid for the years 1918, 1921 and 1924. The District further sued for the foreclosure of the tax lien on Lots 5 to 11 in Block 15 of the Evants Addition to the Town of Hereford, within the limits of said District.

"The defendants answered by general and special exception and plead the two year statute of limitation.

"A trial to the Court without the intervention of a jury resulted in a judgment that the Independent School District take nothing.

"In view of the holding in the case of American Surety Co. v. Board of Trustees (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 292, and of the holding in State for Dallas County Bois D'Arc Island Levee District v. Glenn (Tex. Com. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 337, and cases therein cited, the members of this Court are not able to agree upon the issue of law involved, and we therefore certify to Your Honors the following question:

"Did the Trial Court correctly hold that the two years' statute of limitation applied to the action brought by the School District to recover the taxes, penalties and costs involved?"

The delinquent taxes for the years 1918, 1921, and 1924 were barred by the two years' statute of limitation unless some other provision of the statute prevented the plea of limitation being presented as a defense.

It is urged that the provisions of article 7298, R. S. 1925, operated to prevent the plea of limitation from being available in a suit for the recovery of the taxes by a school district. This article reads as follows: "No delinquent tax payer shall have the right to plead in any court or in any manner rely upon any statute of limitation by way of defense against the payment of any taxes due from him or her either to the State, or any county, city or town."

The application of the above statute is expressly limited to suits to collect taxes due the state, county, city, or town, and is not, in our opinion, applicable to taxes due to school districts. This being the only statute which we think can be urged as having the effect of preventing the operation of the statute of limitation as to the taxes due for the years 1918 and 1921, we are compelled to hold that the recovery of such taxes by the school district was barred; hence the trial court properly sustained an exception to the petition seeking a recovery therefor.

We conclude, however, that subsequent legislation, effective before the taxes for the year 1924 became barred, prevents the plea of limitation from being used as a defense against the recovery of such taxes.

Our conclusion is...