Johnson v. Holland

• Decision Date: 13 November 1897
• Citation: 43 S.W. 71
• Parties: JOHNSON v. HOLLAND, Tax Collector, et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

43 S.W. 71

JOHNSON v. HOLLAND, Tax Collector, et al.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

November 13, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Carson county; B. M. Baker, Judge.

Petition by A. S. Johnson against A. A. Holland, tax collector, and others, for an injunction. From a judgment dissolving the temporary injunction and dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

H. E. Hoover, for appellant. Plemons & Veale, for appellees.

HUNTER, J.

This suit was brought February 8, 1897, in the district court of Carson county, by the appellant, against the county of Carson, J. J. Ivers, county judge, and the other members of the commissioners' court of said county, and against A. A. Holland, tax collector of said county, to annul and set aside a certain order made by the said judge and county commissioners while sitting as a board of equalization, in June, 1896, and in which the said board raised the value of appellant's 19,840 acres of unimproved lands, as assessed by his agent to the tax assessor of said county under oath, from $44,740 to $66,960, and some town lots at Panhandle, the county seat of Carson county, from $2,796 to $14,196, whereby his taxes for 1896 were raised and increased from $682.90 to $1,032.33; making, as claimed, an unjust charge against him, in the taxes of that year, of $352.43. It is averred in the petition that the lands and lots had been assessed by appellant's agent to the tax assessor at their true cash value, and at more than they could possibly be sold for or were worth on the 1st day of January, 1896, or at any time thereafter; that at said date there was no market or sale for said lands and lots, or either of them, and that appellant would at said date, or at any time since, have sold the same for even less than the amount at which the same were assessed; that said board of equalization arbitrarily and fraudulently raised the value on said lands and lots as above stated, well knowing that the value placed thereon by said board was more than the lands and lots were worth; that said board fixed the value of cattle rendered and assessed in said county for taxes for said year at less than 50 per cent. of their actual cash value on the 1st day of January, 1896, which he alleges to be an illegal and unjust discrimination against him. He also alleges that he appeared before said board, by his agent, and that said agent testified to said facts as above stated, and that no other evidence was offered or heard by said board, and that after hearing said evidence, and while considering and discussing the valuation of plaintiff's said lands and town lots, and before final action thereon, "one of the members of said board, in the presence of the other members, stated and said, in effect, that they (meaning said board) knew that plaintiff's said lands and town lots could not be sold at the price at which plaintiff had rendered the same for taxes, but that it was necessary to fix the value to which they were raised in order to obtain revenue to defray the running expenses of the county." These are substantially the facts stated upon which the allegation of fraud is predicated. Plaintiff tendered and paid into court the sum of $682.90, the amount of taxes due according to the assessment made by him to the assessor, and prayed that the order of the board of equalization raising the valuation of his said property be declared void, and for an injunction compelling the tax collector to accept the amount paid into court in full of his taxes for 1896, and restraining and perpetually enjoining him from collecting the $352.43 increase of taxes caused by the fraudulent order of said board as aforesaid. The defendants demurred to this petition, upon the grounds that the district court had no jurisdiction over the matters and things set up therein, and had no jurisdiction to change, modify, or in any manner revise the orders of the board of equalization in fixing valuations upon property for taxation. There were also a general demurrer and special exceptions, and a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction and dismiss the petition.

The judgment of the district court shows that the motion to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the suit was sustained; the learned judge of that court evidently being of opinion that the proceeding was an effort to revise the order of the board of equalization, and that his court was without jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for. Whether the county court would have jurisdiction to grant an injunction in a case like this, where the amount involved is over $200 and under $500, in counties where the civil jurisdiction has not been taken from the county court and placed in the district court by an act of the legislature, as had been done in this instance (see Sess. Acts 1891, p. 12), we do not now determine; but we are of opinion that the district court of Carson county had jurisdiction of the case as presented, that the petition stated a good cause of action, and that the motion to...