Gully v. MatthewsGully v. Matthews
delivered the opinion of the court.
Aрpellant, in his capacity as state tax collector, filed his bill in the chanсery court of Coahoma county against appellee, Matthews, the sheriff and tax collector of that county, to enjoin the latter from proseсuting in the county court eighty-four suits brought by him against eighty-four separate slot machine оperators in the county. It was sought by such suits to recover the state and leveе district privilege taxes imposed by law for the operation of such machines. The ground of appellant’s bill was that he had previously brought suit in the chancery court of the county against the same defendants upon the identical causеs of action, and in addition had joined the appellee and the surety on his official bond therein, seeking to hold them liable for the taxes and penalty, on thе ground that through the willful default or negligence of appellee the taxes hаd not been collected. A temporary injunction was issued, and a motion to dissolve was heard by the chancellor on bill, answer, and proofs, resulting in a decree sustaining the motion. From that decree this appeal was granted to settle the principles of the cause.
. The privilege tax on slot machines is impоsed by chapter 20, Laws 1935 (Ex. Sess.). Section 6986, Code 1930, expressly authorizes the state tax collector to sue for and *587 recover any and all unpaid taxes of whatsoever kind, “state, county, municipality, drainage, levee or other taxing district, or any subdivision thereof.” Section 247 of chapter 20, Laws of 1935 (Ex. Sess.), authorizes the sheriffs and tax collectors to bring suit for unpaid privilege taxes. Section 6995, -Code 1930, provides, among other things, that, when the state tax collector sues a delinquent taxpayer, the assessor and sheriff and tax collector shall be made parties defendant, and, if it shall appear that the failure of the taxpayer to рay his taxes was caused by any willful default or negligence of either, judgment shall be rendered against the defaulter for the statutory penalty.
It is not questioned that the right to sue existed in both the appellant and the appellee. The question in the ease is whether or not the one suing first has the right to prosecute the cause to a final determination to the exclusion of the other, and, if necessary tо that end, the right to abate the other. It was held in Robertson v. Bank,
Counsel appear to be in agreement thus far. Appellee ’s position is that this question can be raised alone by the defendants in the eighty-four suits, not by appellant. Undoubtedly that is the general rule. The pendency of another suit between the same parties on the same cause of action and for the samе relief may he pleaded in abatement of a subsequent suit. The rule rests upon thе right of every one to be protected from unnecessary and vexatious litigаtion; however, it l's subject to many exceptions and limitations. Griffin v. Board of Miss. Levee Commissioners,
The injunction reinstated, and reversed and remanded.