726
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
near Zilrr
3% have yaur lo
reads a6 fol.loset
"The followlr.~~
this oourltyt a inacl
a I mura lfke to
tke Qollflt~ and
, to refund ths tax*e
ae ‘&lirlg Fnae L!g at page 456:
*Aa aatlou vi111not IAs to reaover baok
taxes paid uzldar83afatake ot fsat, a9 when zia
727
Honorable hei 3. Gilligaa, Ta&e 2
~_ property by xlotakeimys the taxes
own-e of
or another',or rllena trargaay8.r
In one C~istriCt
voluntarilyysayoa tax ior aaother district
lavisd by detake on hle lauds."
Staytou, Ghief Juatiae, speaking for the SuJr;rs;ne
Court of Texas in County of Oelvueton wt. Galveston Gas Co.
(1869) 7Z Tax. 590, as.page 513, 10 8. W. 5S3:
;;.i
Vhls actioa is for money had aad received,
and tkere csn be so doubt that in order to
maintain it it must appear thnt the tar em3
illegal and void and not orerelydirreguly.
that it was sot voluatsrilyua . . . .
TUnuerscoringour8I
Critz, Juetlce, in the caue of Austin :~atlonal
Bask ~8. Sheapsrd (Con, of App. 1934), l2:3Tex. 27.2,
71 S, PZ. (Zdj 243, said:
*A person who voluutarilyizsysan il-
lsg0l tax has no olaim for It8 repaymmt.~
as R. c. L. 455; city or Rouston VS. eeeeer,
76 Tex. 3663 Galveston city Co. 'IS.City oZ
Galveston, 58 Tex. 4861 "er Soott e;Co,
VS. shfinuon,115 8, V. 361, snd authorities
cited on pa:e 364. Thts case was afflmad
by the Ufited States Supreme Court, 223 U. S.
460.*
Yiizmms thla rule nig;itat Ilrst blush seen un-
neoeaaarilyhareh, ths aouud reesoa and gubllo policy be-
hind It hna bsen dell stated by Cooley in the followfng
passage quoted by C.i,ief
Justioe Stayton in City of how&on
vs. Jaaob Freeaer, 76 Tsx. 365 at gage 36'7:
Yhst a tax volmtsrily paid cmnot be
reoovered,though it ha4 sot the semblance or
legality, Is well settled; and ae said by en
olenenterywriter, 'everymn 18 su.>;msedto
ksmw the law, and if he voluatflrilyamkeeaa
payPent which the lsw would not co-~01 hint
to make, he ca:!notrifterwnrds assign his
iguorenas of the law as the reason why .tiie
State should furnish his wltf;lezaf resedi68
to rtmover it back, . . . Ylstnke oi'fsot can
acaraely sxlst in such a aase except in ctn-
uection with neiflisoaoe, as the illc+3alities
wh1e.brender suoh a derra?da nullity mst
appear rro=i titoreccds, t-idthe tax payer
1s Just insmmir bound to inform h:z.welf rhsf
the reoorifsshou es are the pab:ic auttiorities.
The rule of law Is a rule of sowid ?ublie
policy elao; it la a rule of quiet as vv3l.l.
as
of good faith, and proaludes the coirrtebairg
ol;oupiedin undoing the arre.ageaentsof prtles
rbioh they have voluntarilymade, and into.
which thuy have mt beoa drawn by f,-auC:or
aooidtmt, or by any exousable lr,oranoe of
their 1egU rl.@ts and llabiUtlas.* Cooley
on Tax 839.'@
bpplylng the rule of leu a-mozmmd by tr,tJ
fors~ol3g
attthor,ltlea
to the situation presentedin your letter, we are
o~natralnbdto answer your quaetion.lnthe negative.
Yours very truly