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
roii0mg rtatc of
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 mount to pay th0
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
editha to a poll tax that would atithorizr her to votd;
The Tax oolleotor reiused to 1st~~ to the taxpayer his gall
tax reoelpt a8 ot date January Sl, 1939.
Mr. W. Pat Camp, &oh 16, 1930, Page e
Artlole 7278 oi ths R‘vl‘ea Statutae, a8 rmendoaIn
193l, proildeer
. . . any pereon, inoiuabg
II
a lienholder, bar-
lng an lntereet in property agalnet whloh there am
taxer whloh hai been lnoluded In an leeeeemment 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 letatetrot apart, uesd or deelgnated
a8 a homerteed ‘hell be ‘old for taxer other than
the taxer due on luoh 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 !’
tax without the prqmeat of any other tu that may hare been
aeereeed agalnet him. Slaoe’ nelhhor hle poll 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 that the property eou&t to be r0r801088a
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 p lnlo thata lla6e 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.OFTGXAB
OWBIPRP
APPROVED:
.-II-- /a/
---- Gerald
~- 0. Mann