League v. State
| Decision Date | 21 May 1900 |
| Citation | 57 S.W. 34 |
| Parties | LEAGUE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by the state of Texas against J. C. League to foreclose a tax lien. From a judgment of the court of civil appeals (56 S. W. 262) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Robt. M. Franklin, for plaintiff in error. T. S. Smith, Atty. Gen., D. E. Simmons, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John Thomson, for the State.
Under the provisions of chapter 103 of the General Laws of 1897, p. 132, this suit was instituted in the district court of San Augustine county to foreclose the state's lien for the taxes of the years 1884 to 1896, inclusive, upon 14 tracts of land lying in the said county, patented in the name of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company. It was alleged that the plaintiff in error was the owner of the said land; that it had been regularly assessed for taxes in the names of different parties for each year, and after January 1, 1885, each tract had been sold for the taxes of 1884, at which sale the state bid it in according to law. The petition alleged that the county commissioners' court of San Augustine county had caused the tax collector of the said county to prepare a list of "all lands, lots, or parts of lots sold to the state of Texas for taxes since the 1st day of January, 1885, which had not been redeemed according to law," and also alleged that the county commissioners had examined and approved said list, and caused the same to be published, as prescribed by said act. The petition was sworn to, as required by the statute. The defendant answered by a general demurrer and special exceptions, and by special answer, which contained the following allegations: "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 county for 1884 taxes and for the taxes of subsequent years, and they have in every instance been bid in by the collector of taxes for the state of Texas, in obedience to the laws of the said state." The answer of the defendant was sworn to. The evidence showed that the lands had been assessed for taxes in each year, as alleged, and that each survey had been sold for taxes of 1884, and bid in by the state; that the lands were not assessed as the property of the defendant for any year named, but were assessed in different names as owners, and for some years as the property of unknown owners. The proof showed that the commissioners' court of San Augustine county had complied with the law in making the list, and in causing the same to be recorded and published and that the land had never been redeemed from the state. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of the state against the defendant, League, foreclosing the state's lien upon the land described in the petition, for the amount of the taxes due to the state, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum and penalties as prescribed by the statute, with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Gabler
... ... 1, pp. 354, 355, 375. This rule has peculiar importance in testing the validity of a state law, for "the legislative department is not made a special agency for the exercise of specifically defined legislative powers, but is intrusted with ... This is the construction that was placed on Section 13 of Article VIII by the Court of Civil Appeals in League v. State, 56 S.W. 262, approved and affirmed by this Court, 93 Tex. 553, 558, 57 S.W. 34, and affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, 184 ... ...
-
Grossman v. HUDSPETH COUNTY CONSERVATION, ETC., DIST. NO. 1, 7543.
...in by them for taxes, and might so require by a statute passed after the sales and after the acquisition of title. League v. State of Texas, 93 Tex. 553, 57 S. W. 34; Id., 184 U. S. 156, 22 S. Ct. 475, 46 L. Ed. 478; Lewis v. Tipton, 29 N. M. 269, 222 P. 661; Grieb v. National Bank of Kentu......
-
City of Rising Star v. Dill
...App. §§ 58, 62. An act requiring interest to be paid on taxes as a condition of redemption from the state is held legal in League v. State, 93 Tex. 553, 57 S. W. 34; Landa v. Obert, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 25 S. W. Hence, we conclude that this objection of appellee to the judgment rendered on......
-
League v. State of Texas
...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 Mr. F. Charles Hume for plaintiff in error. Messrs. D. E. Simmons and C. K. Bell for defendant......