Federal Royalty Co. v. State
Citation | 42 S.W.2d 670 |
Decision Date | 24 September 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 2558.,2558. |
Parties | FEDERAL ROYALTY CO. v. STATE. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Pecos County; Joe G. Montague, Judge.
Suit by the state against the Federal Royalty Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Ike S. Handy, of Houston, for appellant.
Hart Johnson, of Ft. Stockton, and Brian Montague, of Del Rio, for the State.
This suit was brought by the state of Texas, in the district court of Pecos county, against the Federal Royalty Company, a corporation, with its principal office in Harris county, Tex., to recover the taxes, interest, penalties, and costs alleged to be due for the year 1929, and to foreclose the tax lien on a royalty interest in oil and gas in two sections of patented public school lands situated in Pecos county; the said two sections of land being fully described in the petition. The lands are situated in the eastern portion of Pecos county in what is generally known as the Yates oil field.
The case was tried to the court without a jury, and appealed to this court upon an agreed statement of facts.
In view of the issues presented here, we deem it unnecessary to state the pleadings of the parties more than to say that the suit was brought by the county attorney of Pecos county, Hon. Hart Johnson, on behalf of the state, for the collection of the taxes, interest, penalties, and costs and the foreclosure of the tax lien on the lands described as the property of defendant for the year 1929, the lands being unrendered for taxes in Pecos county, and delinquent in the payment of taxes assessed against said property.
The defendant answered by general demurrer, special exceptions, and general denial; the contention made by the defendant being that no assessment for taxes was made and that the royalty interests owned by it were in fact personal property and not real property, and not subject to taxation in Pecos county.
Judgment was rendered against defendant; defendant duly excepted, gave notice, and has perfected this appeal.
Opinion.Appellant submits that "the assessment under which the taxes sued for were made was void because not made by the Tax Assessor of Pecos County."
Appellee submits that the assessment was a valid assessment.
On the issue as to the making the assessment on the property in controversy, the record, very briefly stated, shows: The parties agree in writing to the following: It was agreed that on January 1, 1929, the appellant was the owner of the interests described in the petition, under and by virtue of the following written instruments; that the interests are correctly described on the tax rolls of Pecos county for the year 1929, as unrendered property, and that the same are correctly described on the delinquent tax roll of said county for said year; agreed that all notices prerequisite to filing suit for delinquent taxes were given; demand was made for payment of such taxes, and that defendant failed and refused to pay same or any thereof. Appellant being the owner of the interests in the property, we need not, under this proposition, state the character of the interests owned in determining the validity of the assessment more than to say that the interest held is such as is held by what is commonly known as mineral deeds, and a lessee under the usual form of an oil and gas lease, hereinafter more particularly stated.
The record and agreement shows that on September 10, 1928, Pecos county, acting by and through the commissioner's court of that county, by reason of the many years of experience in the matter of appraisals and valuations of such properties for tax assessments possessed by Thomas Y. Pickett & Co. of Dallas, Tex., employed that company to compile a list of the record owners of all producing oil and gas properties wherever situated or located in Pecos county, Tex., and undeveloped leases and royalty interests adjacent thereto, as of January 1, 1929, and 1930; said compilation and record to show the particular interest, or interests therein owned, to secure for Pecos county all information possible and available for the use of Pecos county, sitting as a board of equalization in determining the proper valuations to be fixed upon such properties for assessment and taxation purposes; and generally to compile such information as shall be of aid and benefit to Pecos county in equalizing the values of such properties for taxation; to meet with the commissioners' court of Pecos county, Tex., sitting as a board of equalization, and to furnish said board all the information secured by them during their investigations for the purpose of equalizing the assessments upon such properties; to make a survey of all pipe lines, refineries, tank farms, and tankage, and all other properties of value used in connection with said oil and gas development, including transportation facilities.
The assessment of the property made by the assessor, and, in doing so, the use made by him of the information in the form of an inventory made by Thomas Y. Pickett & Co., is shown by the evidence of the assessor, which we copy at length.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mohr v. County Court of Cabell County
...Court heretofore, similar questions have been decided by appellate courts of other jurisdictions. In the case of Federal Royalty Co. v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 670, a firm of exerts had been employed on behalf of Pecos County to make a survey and report of real estate to aid the boar......
-
Electra Independent Sch. Dist. v. W. T. Waggoner Estate, 1918-7948.
...264. Royalty interests in oil and gas acquired under instruments conveying minerals in place are taxable as realty. Federal Royalty Co. v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 670; Sheffield v. Hogg, 124 Tex. 290, 77 S.W.2d 1021; Id., 124 Tex. 290, 80 S.W.2d Article 7164 of Vernon's Annotated Civ......
-
Pritchard & Abbott v. McKenna
...gas interest. As to the exact question before us the authorities are somewhat meager and not wholly decisive. In Federal Royalty Co. v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 670, suit was brought by the State of Texas to recover taxes and foreclose tax lien on a royalty interest in oil and gas lan......
-
Pritchard & Abbott v. McKenna
...properties prior to the time it convenes as a board of equalization. Roper v. Hall, Tex.Civ.App., 280 S.W.2d 289; Federal Royalty Company v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 670. The contracts in those cases, however, were restricted to the narrow and special field, where the services require......