A. & M. Consolidated Ind. School Dist. v. City of Bryan

• Decision Date: 17 January 1945
• Docket Number: No. A-201.,A-201.
• Citation: 184 S.W.2d 914
• Parties: A. & M. CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. CITY OF BRYAN.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 914

184 S.W.2d 914

A. & M. CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. CITY OF BRYAN.

No. A-201.

Supreme Court of Texas.

January 17, 1945.

Rehearing Denied February 14, 1945.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Tenth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by A. and M. Consolidated Independent School District against the City of Bryan, Texas, to recover ad valorem taxes on rural electrification lines owned by defendant and extending through plaintiff school district. A judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and judgment there rendered for defendant, 179 S.W.2d 987, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

R. Mudgett, of Bryan, and Ed. S. Pritchard and Wm. Pannill, both of Ft. Worth, for plaintiff in error.

F. L. Henderson, of Bryan, and Davis, Jester, Tyson & Dawson, of Corsicana, for defendant in error.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

This suit was brought by A. & M. Consolidated Independent School District against the City of Bryan to recover ad valorem taxes on rural electrification lines owned by the City of Bryan and extending through the School District. The judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and judgment there rendered for the City of Bryan. 179 S.W.2d 987. This Court granted a writ of error because of the importance of the question.

The City of Bryan is a home rule city. It owns and operates a rural electrification system, with approximately 315 miles of lines, and supplies electrical energy and lights to the inhabitants of the City of Bryan and the surrounding rural territory and at least one nearby incorporated city, and charges for the services so rendered. 35 miles of the lines are situated within the City of Bryan, and 280 miles thereof extend through the rural territory of Brazos, Burleson, and Robertson Counties outside of the City of Bryan. 38½ miles of these lines are within the boundaries of the plaintiff School District, which District lies wholly outside of the City of Bryan. The revenues received from the operation of said rural electrification lines are used to maintain and operate same, and to retire the obligation of the United States Rural Electrification Administration incurred in the construction of the system.

The question to be determined is whether the rural electrification lines located within the School District are subject to taxation by such District. The pertinent provisions of our Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St., are as follows:

"Article VIII. Sec. 2. All occupation taxes shall be equal and uniform upon the same class of subjects within the limits of the authority levying the tax; but the Legislature may, by general laws, exempt from taxation public property used for public purposes; * * *."

"Article XI. Sec. 9. The property of counties, cities and towns, owned and held only for public purposes, such as public buildings and the sites therefor. Fire engines and the furniture thereof, and all property used, or intended for extinguishing fires, public grounds and all other property devoted exclusively to the use and benefit of the public shall be exempt from forced sale and from taxation, provided, nothing herein shall prevent the enforcement of the vendors lien, the mechanics or builders lien, or other liens now existing."

It is apparent from the above provisions of our Constitution that some public property is absolutely exempted from taxation by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution, whereas other public property is not absolutely exempted, but may be so exempted if the Legislature so elects. Section 9 of Article XI appears to be self-operative and absolutely exempts from taxation the public property therein referred to, whereas Section 2 of Article VIII vests in the Legislature the power to determine whether or not the public property therein referred to shall be exempted from taxation. Daugherty v. Thompson, 71 Tex. 192, 199, 9 S.W. 99; Galveston Wharf Co. v. City of Galveston, 63 Tex. 14. See also City of Abilene v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 631, par. 7.

We need not here determine to which of these classes the property here involved belongs, for the Legislature by the provisions of Revised Statutes, Article 7150, has exercised the authority so vested in it, and has exempted from taxation all public property used for public purposes. That Article provides in part as follows:

"Art. 7150. The following property shall be exempt from taxation, to-wit:

* * * * *

"4. Public property.—All property, whether real or personal, belonging exclusively to this State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the United States, * * *."

The only question which we here need to determine is whether the rural electrification lines in question constitute public property used for public purposes within the meaning of either of the above provisions of our Constitution.

The property in question is owned by the City of Bryan, a municipal corporation, and is therefore public property. Is it used for public purposes? In determining whether or not public property is used for a public purpose the test appears to be whether it is used primarily for the health, comfort, and welfare of the public. Commonwealth v. City of Covington, 128 Ky. 36, 107 S.W. 231; 14 L.R.A., N.S., 1214; Galveston Wharf Co. v. City of Galveston, 63 Tex. 14. It is not essential that it be used for governmental purposes. Corporation of San Felipe de Austin v. State, 111 Tex. 108, 229 S.W. 845. It is sufficient if it be property which all of the public has a right to use under proper regulations. Galveston Wharf Co. v. City of Galveston, 63 Tex. 14, 23. The fact that charges are made or compensation is received for its use does not withdraw it from its public character, provided such charges are an incident to its use by the public and the proceeds received for its use inure to the benefit of the political subdivision. Galveston Wharf Co. v. City of Galveston, supra; 61 C.J. 421.

The property in question appears to be used for a public purpose. It...