Marion County v. Perkins Bros. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 November 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 1356.)
• Citation: 171 S.W. 789
• Parties: MARION COUNTY et al. v. PERKINS BROS. CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 789

171 S.W. 789

MARION COUNTY et al. v. PERKINS BROS. CO.

(No. 1356.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

November 26, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Marion County; W. T. Armstead, Judge.

Suit by Perkins Bros. Company against Marion County and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed, with instructions to dismiss.

W. L. Grogan, of Jefferson, for appellants. R. R. Taylor, of Jefferson, for appellee.

HODGES, J.

In December, 1913, Perkins Bros. Company, which is described as a private corporation, filed an application in the court below seeking to restrain the county of Marion and the tax collector of that county from demanding certain taxes which it is claimed were illegally assessed. On January 26th an amended original petition was filed. It is alleged that Perkins Bros. Company is a private corporation, with its place of business and domicile in Jefferson, Marion county, Tex., with S. P. Perkins as its president, who resides in Hunt county, Tex.; that during the year 1913 it was a taxpayer in Marion county; "that it rendered its assessments of its property for taxation to the tax assessor for said county for said year 1913 at and for the sum of $10,000, which complainant believes was full valuation; that there is and was a custom in force at that time, and it was the rule of said commissioners' court to accept a valuation of 60 per cent. on all property rendered for taxation." It is alleged that Marion county, acting through its commissioners' court, during the year 1913 arbitrarily and without notice to the complainant raised its assessment from $10,000 to $15,000, and that the county and its tax collector are now unlawfully demanding payment of the sum due upon that assessment, which amounts in the aggregate to $211.50. It is further alleged that the amount due upon an assessment of $10,000 is $141, and that sum is tendered into court. It is further alleged:

"That after said commissioners' court, or board of equalization, had raised said assessment, and just as soon as complainant heard of it, it went to said commissioners' court, or board of equalization, and demanded a hearing on the same, and it was denied a hearing by said commissioners' court, or board of equalization; that this complainant is now without a remedy for the redress of this wrong, and will suffer irreparable injury at the hands of said respondent if it is allowed to go ahead and extort from this complainant said illegal and wrongful taxes, as hereinbefore set forth and alleged."

It is also averred:

"That they (the board of equalization) received other assessments of property at a valuation of 60 per cent. and denied this right to this complainant."

The petition closes with a prayer for a writ of injunction restraining the county and the tax collector "from any further attempt to collect said illegal taxes."

Upon a trial before a jury a judgment was rendered in favor of the complainant. An appeal was perfected by all of the parties defendant in the suit, but briefs are filed by Marion county alone.

There are several specific errors assigned, some of which are based upon the remarks made by the attorney for the appellee in his argument before the jury. Without discussing those assignments in detail, we suggest that the language used was improper and would, in our opinion, be sufficient ground for reversing the case in a close contest on the facts. But we think the amended original petition, upon which the case was tried, is fundamentally...