Downman v. State of Texas

• Decision Date: 01 December 1913
• Docket Number: No. 43,43
• Citation: 34 S.Ct. 62,58 L.Ed. 264,231 U.S. 353
• Parties: R. H. DOWNMAN, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF TEXAS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

231 U.S. 353

34 S.Ct. 62

58 L.Ed. 264

R. H. DOWNMAN, Plff. in Err.,

v STATE OF TEXAS.

No. 43.

Submitted November 3, 1913.

Decided December 1, 1913.

Messrs. R. L. Batts and V. L. Brooks for plaintiff in error.

Mr. B. F. Looney, Attorney General of Texas, and Messrs. G. B. Smedley and Knight Stith for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court:

The state of Texas brought suit against Downman to collect taxes on 'mineral rights' owned by him in 50,000 acres of land in Llano county. In his answer he contended that he was not liable because the mineral rights were not real estate, but mere licenses to work and develop mines in the future; that if real estate they had already been returned by the owners of the surface, and, as the latter had already paid taxes on the land, no additional sum could be collected from him. Further, he claimed that the assessments were void as being an unlawful discrimination against the class of persons who, like himself, owned mineral rights separate from the surface estate.

On the trial it appeared that there was no mining in the county, but in many sections there were signs indicating the existence of ore. Prior to 1907 there had been no assessment of mineral either to the owner of the surface or to persons to whom the mineral right had been separately conveyed. In that year the tax books were made up as usual, grazing and agricultural cultural lands being assessed at from $2 to $3 per acre. The tax books were then forwarded to the county commissioners for equalization of values. Acting in pursuance of instructions from the comptroller, the commissioners made order directing the county taxing officer to assess mineral rights where they were owned by persons other than the owners of the surface estate. He thereupon examined the public records and secured the names of the grantees in all deeds which conveyed such rights. Without further investigation as to the existence or value of ore, he assessed the owner on the basis of 50 cents per acre, entering the tax in the column headed, 'Mineral Right Only.' No deduction was made from the amount already entered against the owner of the land proper. The books, with both classes of assessments appearing thereon, were then finally approved, and, in due course, the surface owners paid the taxes assessed against them on the land. Downman, for the reasons already stated, refused to pay the sum demanded of him as taxes on mineral rights in the 50,000 acres. His defense was sustained by the district judge, who held that when the surface owners returned real estate, that included every interest connected with the land, and consequently Downman could not be held for an additional tax on property or value which had already been assessed to the owner of the surface. The court of civil appeals recognized that if the owner of the land, in paying his taxes, had, in fact, paid on the mineral rights also, Downman could not...