Exporters & Traders C., Etc., Co. v. City of Marlin

• Decision Date: 22 June 1939
• Docket Number: No. 2150.,2150.
• Citation: 130 S.W.2d 860
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: EXPORTERS & TRADERS COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. v. CITY OF MARLIN.

130 S.W.2d 860

EXPORTERS & TRADERS COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. v. CITY OF MARLIN.

No. 2150.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

June 22, 1939.

Rehearing Denied July 13, 1939.

Appeal from District Court, Falls County; Terry Dickens, Judge.

Suit by the Exporters & Traders Compress & Warehouse Company against the City of Marlin to enjoin the city from collecting taxes assessed against plaintiff's compress and warehouse, wherein the city reconvened. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

E. M. Dodson and Cecil R. Glass, both of Marlin, for appellant.

Prentice Oltorf, of Marlin, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

This suit was brought by Exporters & Traders Compress & Warehouse Company against the city of Marlin to enjoin the city from collecting the 1937 taxes assessed against plaintiff's compress and warehouse in the city of Marlin on the ground that the Board of Equalization had arbitrarily valued the property too high. The city reconvened and sought judgment for its taxes with foreclosure of its lien. A trial before a jury resulted in judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

The property was rendered for taxes by appellant at $21,600. The Board of Equalization raised it to $32,750. The jury, in answer to special issues, found that the city of Marlin used 50% of the actual value of property as the basis for assessing property for taxing purposes for the year 1937; that the real value of the property in question was $53,000, but that the action of the Board of Equalization, in raising the rendition from $21,600 to $32,750, was not "arbitrarily discriminative."

Under its first proposition, appellant contends that the evidence shows as a matter of law that the Board of Equalization acted arbitrarily in raising the value of the property. This contention is based largely on the fact that one member of the Board of Equalization testified, in substance, that in raising the rendition the Board took into consideration the fact that during the years 1928 to 1931 the property had been rendered by appellant at $35,000; that a part of the buildings burned in 1932; that at that time the company carried $100,000 fire insurance and actually collected $75,000 in cash; and that since that time the burned portion of the building had been rebuilt, and the Board considered that it was as valuable in 1937 as it was before the fire. If the above facts were all that were considered by the Board, there might be substantial grounds for appellant's contention. The evidence shows, however, that the Board took into consideration many other facts and circumstances in fixing the value of the property. One member of the Board, Mr. Dunkem, testified that he was a property owner and businessman in the city of Marlin; that he had been in and around the compress many times and was familiar with the general construction of its plant and had seen the compress in operation; that there was no definite market for compress machinery in Marlin; that the building had been rebuilt after the fire and he considered the cost of reconstructing the building—not including the machinery—amounted to thirty or forty thousand dollars. Another member, Mr. Oltorf, testified that he was a cotton buyer and owned residential and business property in Marlin and was familiar in a general way with the value of property; that he had been in the compress many times and had seen it in operation and knew its size and construction; that when a representative of appellant appeared before the Board to secure a reduction in the assessment it was disclosed by such representative to the Board that at the time of the fire in 1932 the company carried $100,000 fire insurance and collected $75,000 for the loss; that he considered the unburned portion of the improvements worth a least $25,000; that the improvements had been reconstructed after the fire and from all the facts he concluded that in comparison with the valuation placed on other property for tax purposes, appellant's property was properly valued at $32,750. The third member of the Board testified that he was in the gin business in Marlin and owned business and residential property and was familiar in a general way with the value of property in Marlin; that he had been in...