City of Wichita Falls v. J. J. & M. Taxman Refining Co.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 13121.,13121. |
| Citation | 74 S.W.2d 524 |
| Parties | CITY OF WICHITA FALLS v. J. J. & M. TAXMAN REFINING CO., Inc. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; Vincent Stine, Judge.
Action by the City of Wichita Falls against the J. J. & M. Taxman Refining Company, Incorporated. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
J. T. Montgomery, T. R. Boone, and Thelbert Martin, all of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Weeks, Morrow & Francis and Harry C. Weeks, all of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
John McGlasson, Tom P. Scott, Weatherby & Rogers, and Albert C. Johnston, all of Waco, amici curiæ.
This suit was instituted by the city of Wichita Falls against the J. J. & M. Taxman Refining Company, Incorporated, to recover taxes claimed on certain real estate, alleged to have been duly and legally levied against the property for the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1930, and 1931; and to foreclose a lien for those taxes.
The defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition and also a special answer, alleging certain acts and conduct on the part of the official representatives of the city charged with the duty of assessing and collecting taxes which will be hereinafter noted, by reason of which it was alleged the assessments and all proceedings in connection therewith and the lien asserted were all illegal, void, and unenforceable; and that to enforce the same would be to deprive the defendant of its property without due process of law and would deny it the equal protection of the law guaranteed by both the state and Federal Constitutions. There was a further prayer for a cancellation of the lien claimed by plaintiff as a cloud upon defendant's title.
Plaintiff addressed a general demurrer to that special answer and also filed a general denial of the allegations of fact therein contained. That general demurrer was overruled and plaintiff excepted to that ruling. The case then went to trial before the court without a jury, at the conclusion of which judgment was rendered denying plaintiff any relief and canceling and removing the lien claimed by it as a cloud upon defendant's title to the property in controversy, to all of which plaintiff excepted and has duly prosecuted an appeal therefrom to this court.
At the beginning of the trial, the following agreement was made by counsel for the defendant:
Following are provisions of the Charter of the City of Wichita Falls:
Section 10 provides that the board of aldermen shall consist of a mayor and five aldermen elected by the city at large and at a general city election.
Other sections of the charter provide for appointment by the board of aldermen of a city clerk, city attorney, city manager, city assessor, and collector of taxes, and a board of equalization.
"Section 65: The City Manager shall have the power to appoint a director of finance to have supervision over the department of finances and to administer the financial affairs of the city, including the levy, assessment and collection of taxes, or other revenues, the custody and disbursement of city funds and moneys, and such other duties as the Board of Aldermen may by ordinance prescribe."
By section 74 the board of aldermen is given the power to levy and collect an annual tax on all property subject to taxation within the city.
"Section 77: The Board of Aldermen shall have the power by ordinance to regulate the mode and manner of making out tax lists, inventories and appraisements of property for taxation, and to prescribe the oath that shall be administered to each person on such rendition of his property, and to prescribe the manner and form of assessment rolls, and to fix the duties and define the power of the City Assessor and Collector, and adopt such measures as the Board of Aldermen may deem advisable to secure the assessment of all property subject to taxation within the city and to provide for the equalization of all taxes assessed."
By section 78 it is made the duty of the board of equalization to examine the assessments for taxes returned by the tax assessor and equalize assessments so made upon all property assessed.
By section 83 a lien is given in favor of the city on all property in the city subject to taxation.
Article 8, § 1, of the state Constitution provides:
Chapter 6, title 122, Revised Civil Statutes, provides that all property, real, personal, and mixed, except certain exemptions, shall be subject to taxation, followed by specific provisions for taxation of personal property including intangible assets of different kinds, such as money on hand, credits for deposits in banks, stocks in corporations, promissory notes secured by liens, etc., with directions for ascertaining their assessable values.
Article 7193 provides that in all cases of failure to obtain a statement of real and personal property from the owner from any cause, the assessor shall ascertain the amount and value of the property and assess the same at its true and full value.
Article 7206 describes the duties of the board of equalization, which is in part as follows:
Articles 7213-7216 prescribe penalties for the failure of any tax assessor to comply with his statutory duties with respect to obtaining tax renditions, and by article 7216 it is made the duty of the attorney general of the state to institute proceedings for the removal from office of any tax assessor failing to discharge such duties.
The statement of facts filed here is voluminous, covering the testimony of many witnesses, including that of all the aldermen throughout the years in controversy, the tax assessor and his deputy, members of the board of equalization, and many property owners who rendered property for taxes, and much documentary evidence. It will be impossible to give a full review of that evidence, nor do we believe such to be necessary. It is sufficient to state the ultimate material conclusions of fact which are supported by the evidence and on which the defendant relied to sustain the contention that there had been an unlawful discrimination against its property, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whittenburg
...from the tax rolls altogether, Sam Bassett Lbr. Co. v. City of Houston, 145 Tex. 492, 198 S.W.2d 879; City of Wichita Falls v. J. J. & M. Taxman Ref. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 524, writ refused; Howth v. City of Beaumont, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 350, no writ, except where the omission w......
-
Normandie Oil Corporation v. Oil Trading Co., 11011.
...287 Mass. 170, 191 N.E. 637; Allen v. Powell, 125 Ga. 438, 54 S.E. 137, 138; 3 Tex.Jur., Section 111, page 168; City v. J. J. & M. Taxman Co., Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 524, 531, writ of error refused; Brotherhood v. Wood, Tex.Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 665, 669; Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Kennedy, ......
-
Highland Park I. School Dist. v. Republic Ins. Co.
...where the taxpayer is later given full opportunity to assert his defenses. Art. 7329, Subd. 3; City of Wichita Falls v. J. J. & M. Taxman Refining Co., Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 524, writ The jury findings of defendant's taxables would not be a revaluation of the reserves and a reassessment t......
-
Federal Land Bank of Houston v. State
...v. City of Houston, 145 Tex. 492, 198 S.W.2d 879, 880. A case even stronger in its statement is City of Wichita Falls v. J. J. & M. Taxman Refining Co., Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 524, 529 (writ refused). The court there 'We believe it is clearly deducible from all the decisions that the......