Allen v. Emery Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 3076.)
• Citation: 283 S.W. 674
• Parties: ALLEN v. EMERY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

283 S.W. 674

ALLEN v. EMERY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

(No. 3076.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

April 1, 1926.

Appeal from District Court, Rains County; Geo. B. Hall, Judge.

Suit by the Emory Independent School District against M. L. Allen. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The suit is brought against the appellant by the Emory independent school district, duly constituted as such, to recover certain taxes levied and assessed for the year 1922 upon certain described real estate, and to foreclose the tax lien. The action is brought under the provisions of the statute. The defendant in the case answered, alleging —

"that when he was called upon to render his property situated in the Emory independent school district to said district assessed for taxes, he rendered the same at what he then thought, and at what he still believes, and avers was its fair market value on the 1st day of January, 1922, and at the time of his said rendition. That thereafter the school board of the Emory independent school district, sitting as a board or tribunal for equalizing the assessments and renditions of the property rendered in said school district for taxes for the year 1922, acting through a fraudulent motive, and in pursuance of a policy adopted by them in order to increase the revenue of said Emory independent school district so that said revenue would cover the current expenses thereof, said board of equalization willfully, knowingly, arbitrarily, and fraudulently raised the valuation and rendition of the property situated in said Emory independent school district, especially and including the property belonging to this defendant, from 50 to 200 per cent. more than the fair market value of said property on January 1, 1922, and more than the fair market value thereof on the day and date the said board of equalization raised the renditions and this defendant's rendition of said property. That each and all of the items of defendant's property were by the said board of equalization rendered and assessed by them in sums greatly in excess of the fair market of the same, and such act of said board of equalization was in violation of the constitution and as well the law of this state."

By supplemental petition, the appellee replied to the appellant's answer, alleging, substantially, that the board of equalization made equal and uniform valuation of all the taxable property in the district according to the true and fair market values thereof, and according to the honest judgment of the said board, including the appellant's property; that the said board duly notified the property owners, and particularly the appellant, to appear and show cause why the said valuation should not be fixed, and that the appellant "failed and refused to appear before the said board of equalization, and refused to present to said board any evidence as to the value of his property, and offered no objection, to, nor reason why, same should not be raised."

The case was tried without a jury. The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff, the Emory independent school district. The trial court made the following conclusions:

"Of Fact.

"(1) The court finds that the board of equalization of the Emory independent school district assessed the property at what it honestly thought was the reasonable and fair market value, and that it was not actuated by any fraudulent intent in so fixing the values, and that it did not knowingly or willfully fix such values above its fair market value.

"(2) The court finds that the property was assessed by the said board of equalization at $2,250 above its fair market value on the 1st day of January, 1922, and at all times during the year 1922.

"(3) The court concludes that the difference in the amount of the assessment made by the board and the fair market value of the property assessed was not sufficient to show fraud on that fact alone.

"(4) The court finds that, when the board of equalization of the Emory independent school district met, the said board raised the rendition of the defendant, M. L. Allen; that the said defendant was notified of the said raise, and notified to appear before the said board and show cause why the said raise should not become final, and that M. L. Allen failed to appear before the said board of equalization, for any purpose, or to offer any testimony as to the value of the said property.

"Of Law.

"(1) The court concludes as a matter of law that, by reason of the fact that the defendant failed to appear before the board in response to the notice given him by the board to appear and show cause why his assessment should not be raised, he was estopped, and this court has no jurisdiction."

The appellant excepts to the first finding of fact above. The special testimony he relies on is that portion of the secretary's evidence reading:

"I am secretary of the board of trustees, and was on January 1, 1922, and during all the year 1922. I was a member of the board of equalization. * * * The taxpayers were notified by me to appear before the board and show why their rendition should not be increased or lowered. In fixing the values, we took each particular assessment in arriving at the value. We discussed it and considered the value of the land, and each survey, before we fixed the valuation of it. We did not fix the valuation from any arbitrary motive, or for any arbitrary purpose, but we fixed the market value as near as it could be determined by us on each piece of property. In my judgment the values fixed were the true market value...