Legal Opinion

City of Cisco v. Varner

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided April 24, 1929No. 1064-5281PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeddy, J.

The only question presented for our decision is whether the defense of limitation is available to a property holder who . is sued by a city or town to recover the amount of an assessment made by such municipality to cover the cost of paving a street adjacent to property owned by her.

It is insisted that in such a suit the amount sought to be recovered is a tax within the meaning of article 7298, R. S. 1925, to which the statute of limitation has no application. .•This article of the statute reads as follows:

“No delinquent taxpayer shall have the right to plead in any court or in any manner…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Higgins v. BordagesTexas Supreme Court · 1895
  2. City of Bridgeport v. New York & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
  3. Hutcheson v. StorrieTexas Supreme Court · 1899
  4. In re the Mayor of New-YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1814
  5. Mayor of Baltimore v. Proprietors of Green Mount CemeteryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1855

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. City of Bristow Ex Rel. Hedges v. GroomSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1944
  2. Wichita County Water Improvement District No. 2 v. City of Wichita FallsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
  3. Altman v. KilburnNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co. v. BeryleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
  5. Bauer v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1936

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API