Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF ‘TEXAS
AUSTIN
Yaroh 18, lOSO I&. 1. Pat camp
Aret. Criminal Dlrtrlot Attorne7
San Antonlo, Texhr
Dear Sir:
Is based upon the rtatc of roii0mg
tax, but the taxparor I ohook to pay hi8 wife’ I poll or arosrtalnrd this Saot on turned the ohsok to the taxpayer, aln a ruffloient to pay th0 mount upon, the tagmyjrer paid to the Tu nal amount rrqulroa for his ‘wlfe*r poll ea the Tax Collsotor t& dellter to hfm ate Jenuary 31, 1939, 80 that hb would be entitled to vote, m oontentlon being made that hir;wlfe .ras to a poll tax that would atithorizr her to votd; editha The Tax oolleotor reiused to 1st~~ to the taxpayer his gall tax reoelpt a8 ot date January Sl, 1939. *2 16, 1930, Page e
Mr. W. Pat Camp, &oh a8 rmendoa In oi ths R‘vl‘ea Statutae, Artlole 7278 193l, proildeer II . . . any pereon, a lienholder, bar- inoiuabg
lng an lntereet in property agalnet whloh there am taxer whloh hai been lnoluded In an l eeeeemment with other property may pay the proportionate part of the tax.8 agalnet hle proprrty without being requlr- ed to pay ear other tax.8
lnoludrd In the aeee8ement.* Artiole 7379, Rerleed Statutes, prorldeer “No real l etate trot apart, uesd or deelgnated a8 a homerteed ‘hell be ‘old for taxer other than the taxer due on l uoh homeetead.a
Slaoe the taxpayer in queetlon wae paying hlr taxer i oa hi8 homerteed, he had a right under thr law to pay eald !’ the prqmeat of any other tu that may hare been tax without agalnet him. Slaoe’ nelhhor hle poll aeereeed tax aor that ! or hle wlfr war, or oould hare bow, a lien ,011 his harneetoad, he war satltlea to pay hle poll tax without paying the tax oa hi8 homeetead.
In Parker v. Buehy, 170 S,W. 104Z, the Court ot Civil Appeal8 held that where the,moaeJ ior the poll tu wee paid to the Tu Oolleotor on or before January 3let, he wae entitled to hi8 poll tax x8orlpt whloh would authorize him to vote, although the Ihx Collrotor did not aotuallr leeue the reoelpt until come dare thereafter.
‘he Suprame Court, in Hlgglne v. Bordagee, 88 Tex. 4!58, 31 8. WI 52, and Barnett v. Eureka Paring Oo., Z54 S.W. lOSl,
epeoliioelly held that the homertoad war not liable ror any tax cave aaa exoept tha taxee dua agalnet the homerteed, and rurther held therein that Ii the petition or the State ror tuee revealed the property eou&t to be r0r801088a that oa far tax88 wae a hclmeetead, ana that the tax on any other pyeexJ wae embraord In. said cult, the judgmeat wae absolutr-
.
It 18 our o plnloa that l la6e the taxpayer paid to tha Tax Oolleotor the amount of Ha poll tax oa January Slet, ho 18 entltled to a poll tax reoelpt whloh would entitle him to vow.
Your8 very truly ATIQRNEY (ZENElUL.OF TGXAB OWBIPRP
APPROVED: /a/ Gerald 0. Mann .-II-- ---- ~-