Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 308
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
308 DOWNES V. MoNROE. [Term of
Opinion of the Court.
E. Downes, as marshal of the town of Crockett, from the college
tion of a capitation tax, levied by the corporate authorities of the
town for the purpose of maintaining and repairing the public
streets. The court overruled a motion to dissolve the injunction
which had issued. At a latter day in the term, it was
ascertained that the injunction bond was insufficient in amount,
and thereupon another judgment was rendered, making the
injunction perpetual on the plaintiff giving a new bond, sufficient
in amount, in twenty days.
Nunn & Wlilliams, for appellant.
No counsel marked for appellee.
REEVES, J. The petition in this case fails to present a statement
of the cause of action, with such allegations pertinent to
the cause as would be necessary to sustain the plaintiff's suit.
It is alleged in the petition that Downes, the defendant in the
court below, claiming to be the marshal of the town of Crockett,
is exacting and attempting to collect from the plaintiff a
tax amounting to five dollars, as a capitation tax for road purposes,
while the plaintiff is paying an ad valorem tax to the
county for road purposes, and alleged by plaintiff to be in violation
of the Constitution and laws of the State.
Fraud is charged in general terms, without showing in what
the fraud consisted.
It appears, from an entry made on the ninth day of the term,
that the injunction was made perpetual, restraining the collection
of the tax, after having overruled the defendant's exception.
Afterwards, on the twenty-ninth day of the term, tile
injunction was made perpetual, provided the plaintiff should
give bond in the sum of one hundred dollars within twenty
days from the date of the order.
The first injunction bond being insufficient in amount, there
would have been no error in sustaining the exceptions to the
bond and permitting the plaintiff to give a new one, as the
defect was in the amount of the bond, if he desired to do so,
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/316/: accessed June 23, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .