Burnett v. Henderson
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Houston. Tried below before Hon. B. H. Martin. Suit upon the official bond of a tax collector, charging that he had failed to pay over money, collected as taxes, for the year 1844, On the trial, the appellee read in evidence the bond of the appellant and his sureties, and also a statement of the account of the appellant, as tax collector for Houston county, for direct taxes, collected by him for the year 1848, in which he was charged with a balance actually due…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Houston. Tried below before Hon. B. H. Martin. Suit upon the official bond of a tax collector, charging that he had failed to pay over money, collected as taxes, for the year 1844, On the trial, the appellee read in evidence the bond of the appellant and his sureties, and also a statement of the account of the appellant, as tax collector for Houston county, for direct taxes, collected by him for the year 1848, in which he was charged with a balance actually due of $775 22, signed Jas. B. Shaw, Comptroller, which was objected to by appellant, but admitted. The appellant asked the…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeleb, J.
The Court did not err in overruling’ the demurrer. The Court was bound judicially to know that the tax collector, duly appointed, could be none other than the Sheriff. (Act of June 16th, 1840, Hart. Dig. p. 901.) The bond is set out and made a part of the petition : and it recites the official character of the defendant, and he and his sureties are thereby estopped from denying it. • (Borden v. Houston, 2 Tex. R. 594.) It was unnecessary to offer other evidence of his official character, and consequently it was unnecessary to aver it with greater particularity. The objection that suit on the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hetten v. LaneTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Dean v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Rose v. WinnTexas Supreme Court · 1879
- Tinsley v. PennimanTexas Supreme Court · 1892
- Houston County v. DwyerTexas Supreme Court · 1883