Kansas City Title Ins. Co. v. Butler

Decision Date29 October 1952
Docket NumberNo. 10065,10065
Citation253 S.W.2d 318
PartiesKANSAS CITY TITLE INS. CO. v. BUTLER et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Thompson, Walker, Smith & Shannon, F. B. Walker, Fort Worth, Critz, Kuykendall, Bauknight & Stevenson, F. L. Kuykendall, Austin, for appellant.

Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., W. V. Geppert, Asst. Atty. Gen., L. P. Lollar, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

ARCHER, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Kansas City Title Insurance Company, is a corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, and at all times pertinent hereto, was doing a title insurance business in Texas, under a proper certificate of authority issued by the Board of Insurance Commissioners of Texas.

This suit was instituted by appellant against the Board of Insurance Commissioners, and the members thereof in their official capacities and against Price Daniel, Attorney General of Texas, and Jesse James, State Treasurer, seeking to recover the sum of $71,892.01, plus accrued interest, which sum appellant had paid under protest.

A jury was waived, and on March 10, 1952, a take nothing judgment was rendered. On March 29, 1952, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed.

The appeal is before us on four points assigned as error.

Point No. One

The trial court erred in holding that appellant's abstract plant in Missouri is a similar security to 'Texas securities,' as defined in Article 7064, against which appellant must measure its securities located in Texas.

Point No. Two

The trial court erred in holding that the $560,000 in capital stock owned by appellant in Title Building Company, a Texas corporation, was not property in Texas in which title insurance companies are authorized to invest their funds.

Point No. Three

The trial court erred in holding the $560,000 of capital stock in Title Building Company, a Texas corporation, owned by appellant was not a 'Texas security' within the definition of 'Texas securities' as contained in Article 7064.

Point No. Four

The trial court erred in failing and refusing to render judgment for appellant for a refund of the sum of $71,892.01, with interest, which sum it had paid under protest pursuant to demands by the Board of Insurance Commissioners of Texas.

It is conceded that the two law questions in this case are:

1. Is an abstract plant owned by appellant in Missouri a similar security to 'Texas securities' as defined by Article 7064?

2. Is the $560,000 of capital stock in Title Building Company, a Texas corporation, a 'Texas security' within the definition of 'Texas securities' set out in Article 7064?

We believe that since an abstract plant is property of this State in which by law a title insurance company may invest its funds, Section 2 of Article 1302a, Vernon's Civ.St., and is a 'Texas security' as the term is defined in Article 7064, V. C.S., that the abstract plant owned by appellant in Missouri is a similar security to Texas security, and should, therefore, be taken into account in the determination of appellant's right to have its tax rate calculated on 1% of the gross amount of premiums received by it upon property located in this State or on risks located in this State.

It is admitted that the appellant had invested in the State of Missouri on the preceding December 31st of each of the taxable years the sum of $500,000 in an abstract plant in that State, and that this sum was not in excess of 50% of its capital stock.

Article 7064, V. C.S., is long and we will not copy it in full herein, but will use such parts as may appear essential to an understanding thereof.

It provides, in part, that every insurance corporation-title-or any other kind or character of insurance business, other than the business of life insurance,-at the time of filing its annual statement, shall report

'to the Board of Insurance Commissioners the gross amount of premiums received upon property located in this State or on risks located in this State during the preceding year, and each of such insurance carriers shall pay an annual tax upon such gross premium receipts of three and five-tenths per cent (3.5%), * * *.

'Each such insurance organization shall also report to the Board of Insurance Commissioners on or before the first day of March of each year, the amount that it had invested on the 31st of December, preceding, in Texas securities as defined herein and the amount that it had invested on said date in similar securities in the state in which it had its highest percentage of admitted assets invested, * * *.

'* * * if the report shows such insurance organization had invested in such Texas securities on such date an amount which is in excess of ninety per cent (90%) of the amount that (he) had invested in similar securities in the state in which it then had the highest percentage of its admitted assets invested, its tax shall be one per cent (1%) of such gross premium receipts.'

Since it is stipulated that the State of Missouri is the State in which appellant, Kansas City Title Insurance Company, had invested as of the preceding December 31st of each of the taxable years the highest percentage of its admitted assets, therefore, in order for the appellant to obtain the minimum taxable rate of 1% as provided in Article 7064, V. C.S., the taxing statute, it must have had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Atlantic Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 Octubre 1967
    ...of the statute is to provide a market for securities issued by Texas governmental entities. (Ibid; Kansas City Title Ins. Co. v. Butler (Ct.Civ.Apls. of Texas, 1952) 253 S.W.2d 318, 320, 321.) No evidence was presented in the present case of any actual relationship between the gross premium......
  • State Bd. of Ins. v. Petroleum Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 1969
    ...7064 were designed to encourage investments by insurance companies in properties of this State. Kansas City Title Ins. Co. v. Butler, 253 S.W.2d 318 (Tex.Civ.App.1952, writ ref., n.r.e.); Board of Insurance Commissioners v. Prudential Fire Ins. Co., 167 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Civ.App.1942, writ re......
  • Commissioner of Ins. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 28 Marzo 1979
    ...understood to be the same as a Texas security except that it is located in another state. See Kansas City Title Insurance Co. v. Butler, 253 S.W.2d 318 (Tex.Civ.App.1952, writ ref'd n. r. e.). The State contends that it is the policy of the State Board of Insurance to construe "in any other......
  • Kansas City Title Ins. Co. v. Butler
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 3 Febrero 1954
    ...22, 1948, is invested in an admissible Texas security. The same question was presented but not decided in our Kansas City Title Ins. Co. v. Butler, Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W.2d 318, writ ref. For the purposes of the Act Texas securities are defined by Art. 7064. It is conceded by the parties th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT