Langley v. Smith

• Decision Date: 12 March 1910
• Citation: 126 S.W. 660
• Parties: LANGLEY et al. v. SMITH et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

126 S.W. 660

LANGLEY et al. v. SMITH et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 12, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Hill County; W. C. Wear, Judge.

Action by L. Langley and others against N. J. Smith and others. From a judgment sustaining a general demurrer to the petition, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

C. L. Black and Morrow & Smithdeal, for appellants. N. J. Smith and Ivy, Hill & Greenwood, for appellees.

RAINEY, C. J.

The appellants brought this suit against the officers of Hill county to enjoin the collection of certain taxes assessed against the stock owned by them in various national banks in Hill county for the year 1908. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained, and plaintiffs appeal.

The petition, after making averments as to names, places, amount of stock each owned, its value, etc., alleged, in effect, that said stock had been listed with the tax assessor of Hill county with a statement of the assets of said banks, etc.; that the board of equalization, without notice, valued said property, when if notice had been given plaintiffs would have appeared and protested. Said petition then proceeds:

"(7) The plaintiffs further show that the said board of equalization imposed a tax on the surplus and profits of said banks, and in making the assessment aforesaid assessed said stock at 85 per cent. of its book value, and in reaching a conclusion as to its book value they added to the capital stock of said banks the value of its surplus and profits, and made said assessment upon said surplus and profits, and said assessment by reason thereof is void and without effect.

"(8) The plaintiffs show to the court that they are informed and believe, and charge the fact to be, that on the 1st day of January, 1908, and at the time of the action of said board of equalization hereinabove referred to, and for long prior thereto, there existed in the state of Texas and especially in Hill county an established and general custom to assess property for taxation at less than its full and fair market value, and that said board of equalization recognized and acted upon and in accord with said custom in equalizing property for taxation in Hill county in the year 1908, with reference to all property except the property consisting of the assets and stock of said banks; that, pursuant to said custom, said board of equalization acting in the year 1908, as aforesaid, fixed and established the value of real estate throughout Hill county at about 41 per cent. of its full and fair market value, and assessed and fixed the value of personal property, including other monied capital similarly invested in the hands of individual citizens, at about 41 per cent. of its full and fair market value, with the exception of the said real estate and personal property of the plaintiffs, and that the said board of equalization at the time aforesaid, with full knowledge of said existing custom and in recognition of the same and with the design and intention to follow the same listed and equalized real estate and personal property other than that of the said national banks at, to wit, the sum of 41 per cent. of its full and fair market value, and intentionally and pursuant to a definite system with the design of imposing an unequal burden of taxation on plaintiffs, they arbitrarily fixed and assessed the value of the bank stock of the plaintiffs and each of them at 85 per cent. of its book value, being all of its full and fair market value. That the action of said board of equalization in so fixing the value of other property at 41 per cent. of its full and fair market value and in fixing the value of plaintiffs' bank stock at its full and fair market value done in pursuance of said system intentionally followed, as aforesaid, was an illegal and arbitrary discrimination against the plaintiffs, and constituted a legal fraud upon them, and was not in fact an equalization of their property with other property, but an intentional, systematical, and arbitrary assessment of their property at more than double the proportionate value at which said commissioners' court, acting as said board of equalization, fixed the value of property, as aforesaid, belonging to other persons, as aforesaid."

"(9) Plaintiffs show to the court: That the rate of taxation in Hill county for the current year 1908 as fixed by the commissioners' court of said county is 22 11/12 cents on the hundred dollars state tax, and 35 cents on the hundred dollars county tax, aggregating 57 11/12 cents on the hundred dollars. That if their property had been assessed according to the custom and system which was pursued intentionally by said board of equalization in equalizing the value of other property the value of said stock would only have been fixed at not more than 41 per cent. of its book value, and if other property had been assessed at the same rate of value as plaintiffs' was, the rate of tax would have been lower, to wit, about one-half the county tax above set out. That the plaintiffs give hereinbelow a statement showing the value at which said board assessed said stock, the amount of tax on said assessment, the tax which should have been assessed against said stock, and the excess over the tax which should have been assessed, said statement being as follows, to wit:

                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      |   Assessed  |  Tax on said    |  Tax Which |
                        Name.         |    Value.   | Assessed Value. |  Should be |   Excess
                                      |             |                 |  Assessed. |
                ----------------------|-------------|-----------------|------------|-----------
                1st. N. Bk. Whitney   | $ 31,875.00 |     184.60      |    91.35   |    93.25
                Cit. N. Bk.    "      |   42,500.00 |     246.14      |   116.00   |   130.14
                1st N. Bk. Blum       |   36,465.00 |     211.29      |    99.22   | 1,111.77
                1st N. Bk. Itasca     |   80,750.00 |     467.67      |   220.40   |   247.27
                Itasca N. Bk.         |   31,875.00 |     184.60      |   991.35   |    93.25
                Sturgis N. Bk.        |             |                 |            |
                  Hillsboro           |  119,085.00 |     556.30      |   271.67   |   284.63
                Cit. N. Bk. Hillsboro |   75,470.69 |     440.17      |   206.01   |   234.16
                Farmers N. Bk.        |   70,095.25 |     398.96      |   170.43   |   228.53
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                

"That said excess over the amount of the tax which should have been assessed as shown hereinabove is an arbitrary, illegal, and fraudulent tax against the property of these plaintiffs by reason of the premises and allegations hereinabove set out. That the sum named hereinabove which should have been assessed and taxed against these plaintiffs for the year 1908 is the fair proportion of these plaintiffs of the taxes due and assessable against their property for the year 1908, and that, by assessing said property at said amount, same will be equalized with other property as aforesaid assessed...