City of Galveston v. Haden

Decision Date21 June 1919
Docket Number(No. 7750.)
Citation214 S.W. 766
PartiesCITY OF GALVESTON v. HADEN.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; Clay S. Briggs, Judge.

Suit by the City of Galveston against W. D. Haden. From judgment rendered, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Mart H. Royston and P. A. Drouilhet, both of Galveston, for appellant.

McDonald & Wayman, of Galveston, for appellee.

GRAVES, J.

The city of Galveston brought this suit against W. D. Haden to recover for taxes alleged to be due it from him on certain boats, barges, and vessels for the years 1905 to 1914, inclusive, on various horses, mules, and wagons for the years 1906 to 1911, inclusive, and on several derricks for the year 1914.

The cause was tried before the court upon an agreed statement of facts, wherein, among other things, it was stipulated:

That Haden, being engaged in the business of dredging and marketing mud shell, had both resided and maintained his principal office in Galveston during all the time material to the controversy; that he did business and had dredge plants located at several places in Texas, such as Redfish Reef, located in Galveston Bay, about 14 miles from the city's limits, Sabine Lake, on the Texas and Louisiana line, Port Arthur, Orange, and Seadrift, having local agents residing at these different places to look after the transaction of his business; that of the property mentioned all his tugboats were registered during the time involved by the collector of customs of the United States custom house for the port of Galveston, as prescribed by section 7719, U. S. Comp. St., none of the barges or dredges, which move only when towed, being required to be registered; that none of the dredges, barges, tugs, and derricks located at Sabine, Port Arthur, Orange, or Seadrift were in or near the corporate or territorial limits of the city of Galveston at any time during the years for which the tax assessments were made; but, on the other hand, were stationed and kept there for use in dredging and transporting shell in and around the places where the plants were located. The derricks at each of those places were on the wharves there, and were used in unloading shell brought in by barge. The dredge, tugs, and barge at Orange were kept there for use in dredging a canal near Orange for the United States government. When any of this floating property was tied up, or not in use for any cause, it was carried to Cedar Bayou, in Harris county, Tex., where Haden had a shipyard and marine ways, to which he carried portions of his floating plant to be repaired, or tied up, when not in use.

The only vessels that came to Galveston were those forming a part of the Redfish Reef dredge plant, which is located about 14 miles northeast of the corporate and territorial limits of the city of Galveston. A dredge was located on this reef, from which Haden transported mud shell in barges towed by a tug to the Galveston wharf, to the wharf at Texas City, to Houston, and other places reached by water in the vicinity of Redfish Reef. The barges and tugs, however, used in connection with the Redfish Reef plant were used more frequently in transporting shell to Galveston than to any of the other named places. After the cargoes from barges brought to Galveston were discharged, they would be towed back to the dredge to be again reloaded. When any of the Redfish Reef plant needed repairs, or was not in use by reason of there being no shell to transport, or when there were breakdowns of the dredge, or when not in use for any other cause, for any length of time, they, too, were taken to the shipyard and marine ways at Cedar Bayou.

The horses, mules, wagons, and two of the derricks were located and kept within the city's limits during the time for which it was sought to collect taxes upon them, and the trial court gave the city judgment for the amount found to be due upon these alone, $255.76, without interest or penalties, denying a recovery as to all the property not situated within its territorial limits.

The city appeals, contending: (1) That it was likewise entitled to collect taxes upon that part of the property not kept within its limits; and (2) that the judgment awarded as to that which had been so kept should have carried both interest and penalties, since the amount had to be collected by suit.

Under the provisions of its charter, and various ordinances from year to year carrying them into effect, the city was authorized —

"to levy for general purposes an annual ad valorem tax on all real, personal and mixed property within the territorial limits of said city. * * * The meaning of the term `personal property' as used in this act, shall be construed to include all household furniture, moneys, goods, capital and chattels, all ships, steamboats and vessels, whether at home or abroad," etc. Section 54, Galveston Charter, Sp. Laws 27th Leg. c. 12, p. 131.

In paragraph 7 of the statement of facts this agreement appears:

"Defendant has been ready and willing to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Morrison-Knudson Co., Inc. v. State Board of Equalization
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 30 d2 Março d2 1943
    ... ... remitted the proceeds by mailing checks to the sellers in New ... York City. Title to the securities did not pass until payment ... was received by the sellers. The court ... 198 F. 46; State v. Great Northern Ry Co., 160 Minn ... 515, 200 N.W. 834; City of Galveston (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 ... S.W. 766; 61 C. J. 1489, 1518. But this is not such a case ... The ... ...
  • City of Dallas v. Overton
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 14 d5 Dezembro d5 1962
    ...of Maryland, 35 Tex.Civ.App. 214, 80 S.W. 544; Guaranty Life Ins. Co. v. City of Austin, 108 Tex. 209, 190 S.W. 189; City of Galveston v. Haden, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W. 766; Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. City of Austin, 112 Tex. 1, 243 S.W. In the more recent case of State v. Crown Central......
  • Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. Com., Etc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 20 d2 Fevereiro d2 1934
    ...et al. (C.C.A.) 198 F. 46; County of Redwood v. Winona & St. Peter Land Co., 40 Minn. 512, 41 N.W. 465, 42 N.W. 473; City of Galveston v. Haden (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S.W. 766; United States Co. of New York v. New Mexico, 183 U.S. 535, 22 S. Ct. 172, 46 L. Ed. 315. The fact the railway compan......
  • Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Barkley for Use and Ben. of Scott County, Ky.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 20 d2 Fevereiro d2 1934
    ... ... to "the proper collecting officer of the county, city, ... town or taxing district for collection," the same ... "shall be due and payable" 30 days ... Winona & St. Peter Land Co., 40 Minn. 512, 41 ... N.W. 465, 42 N.W. 473; City of Galveston v. Haden (Tex ... Civ. App.) 214 S.W. 766; United States Trust Co. of ... New York v. New ... ...

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