Upon mmh refuea]: the Stuarda brought su.$t e&n& the Tax Colleetor to cbtdn a writ of mandnmus aommandlng the Tax Colleotor to reosive the amount 80 tendered. The writ mm denled cad the deoislon of the trial aourt was airlxmd.~ The Court held that under the 8tatute the State Comptroller*s regulatlonm requiring Tax Collootora to return to aooept taxes tendered althout the poll tax on the tax payer’s uiXe was a valid regulation. The Court ln said ease, speakl~ through Chler Juuotloe Conner, eaid rurtlmr:

*The racte here ahaw without dispute under the Conatl- tution and lawe'thet the entire tax asse8ead @alaat and due frcm the rdatorm, 3. B. stuard and tire, use $l.rn. more than the amount of taxes he tendered to the Colleotor, and It is a very ramM.ar prlno%pal announce6 by ntmerou~) deoislona in tti6 State that a creditor le bound to aooept a 8~ less than'that which la due from hfe debtor in Nl dieoharge or the debt, nor 18 a debtor under thorn deolelons entitled to an aoqultame upon a ten6er to hi8 oreilltor or colleoting qent or en amount lees than 16 due Won hl&"

fn the aeee oi State v. Fulmre, 11 8. 8. 48, by the oourt or Civil appeal*, but in which a petition r0r writ error was denied by the Supreme Court, where the tax oollbotor demn&dm illegaltaxinadditlontothe ekouator tam6 legally due,the Court saids

n . ..sbeeatme a pait may have been illegal &a not relieve appellee fwm llabllity for' that part of the ~8-abmt uhfoh no objeotlon could be urged on the gnnm& that the levy or assesementu we8 invalid. In order to eaoape liablllty ror the Interest and penalties allowed by the statute, he should here terrdered the eaount of taxea legally due:" Of oop~ae, it the Texas &Bar Orleans Rallroa~ zx had before February '1,~1939, tendered all ai the amoxm the amount which it later pa%&, end had keptl3ia ten&e~'oo%~ Lb voulf not hare been liable for the penalty. See: state v. RonRan, 201 S. 3. bss, by the Supreme court of Texas; ReseJ fr City Oi Tyler, 45 3. a. (sd) 559; erst l3atlonel Burk'0r Lmpaeaa t. Oltr of Laapaeaa. 78 S. W. 42; St. Leuie Southwestern Ry. Co. of l'exae v. Indepemlent Sobgo ,D%strieb, SO S. W'i (26). 9C& *3 Honorable Oborge A. Sheppard, Page S

But It Is rqually true that when the tax payer tenders M amount in rd. payment 0r all his taxes, *oh amount 18 less than the amount of taxes whloh he owea, ruoh tender Ia not‘etteo- tIve and ehbuld not be oonrdderea in deternilnlng the anwunt the wty to be aharged.ag&ut him. ThIe me, In addltlon to belne, mpgorted by the authorities, la a very reasonable and logloal rule, the purposcr or whIoh la to prevent a tax payer from tendering an amount a little ahart of the total amount du, In the hop@ that It will he aoaepted in full payment, and dth the kuowled&a that if it is not eacepted, the penalty will bo on the mount abwe the amount of the tender only; and In the event It Is aoaepted as part payment , oolleotlon will probably be ror the oolle~tioa made of the amall balanoe. It Is esaentlal of taxes that the tax oolleotor not be placed In thin oompramIslng position.

HOPine that this anmer8 your queetlon. we are Very yours truly AcTOI@iXY OltBERAL OF TEXAB BY

D. D. Mahon ASEXSTMT