Maro Co. v. State, 5512.

• Decision Date: 18 January 1943
• Docket Number: No. 5512.,5512.
• Citation: 168 S.W.2d 510
• Parties: MARO CO., Inc., v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

168 S.W.2d 510

MARO CO., Inc., v. STATE.

No. 5512.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

January 18, 1943.

Rehearing Denied February 15, 1943.

Appeal from District Court, Wilbarger County; C. Y. Welch, Judge.

Action by the State, for itself and Wilbarger County, against the Maro Company, Inc., L. M. Sexton and others for taxes assessed against an oil and gas leasehold, in which the Harrold Consolidated Independent School District intervened. From a judgment for plaintiff against named defendants, defendant Maro Company, Inc., appeals.

Reformed and affirmed as reformed.

T. A. Hicks and Harris & Martin, all of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Harry Bunnenberg and Warlick & Bunnenberg, all of Vernon, for appellee.

PITTS, Chief Justice.

Maro Company, Inc., perfected its appeal in this case from a judgment rendered against it by the District Court of Wilbarger County, without a jury, in favor of the State of Texas as plaintiff for itself and Wilbarger County for taxes, penalties, interest and cost in the total sum of $2,172.32 assessed against an oil and gas leasehold known as 65% or 13/20ths working interest in a certain forty acre tract of land located in said county for the years 1930 to 1941, both inclusive. The record discloses and the trial court so found that the assessments of said property were made against Barkley & Meadows, a partnership, as owners of the property for the years 1930 to 1933, both inclusive, and against Maro Company, Inc., appellants, as owners from 1934 to 1941, both inclusive. Appellant tendered into the trial court the taxes, penalty, interest and cost for the years 1934 to 1941, both inclusive, in the sum of $395.18, which sum was the total amount due for said years according to the undisputed record in this case. The only controversy between the parties is whether or not appellant, Maro Company, Inc., should be held liable for taxes, penalties, interest and cost as assessed against said property for the years 1930 to 1933, both inclusive, when the property in question was owned during said period by Barkley & Meadows.

The record further discloses that there were several other defendants in the suit originally and that Harrold Consolidated Independent School District intervened but that they were all dismissed from the case by the trial court except defendant L. M. Sexton, who, according to the record, bought the leasehold in question from appellant, Maro Company, Inc., on February 10, 1941, who defaulted and failed to appear for trial and against whom the trial court rendered his judgment in the case jointly and severally along with appellant herein, who was the only defendant to appeal from the trial court's judgment.

The record further discloses and the court finds in his findings of fact that for some time within the period of time in question there were three producing oil wells, casing, rods, tubing, pumps and tanks on said leasehold; that the production of the wells had been unprofitable for several years prior to the date of trial of the case on June 16, 1942; and that the leasehold estate was abandoned during the month of February, 1941.

The trial court made additional findings, all of which were objected and excepted to by appellant on the grounds that they were not supported by the pleadings nor the evidence and that some of them were mixed questions of fact and law and appellant timely requested further findings by the trial court, which request was denied by the court, to which action appellant excepted. The trial court's additional findings on the issues before this court were to the effect that the casing, rods, tubing and, other such property was removed from the leasehold estate in the month of February, 1941; that the casing, rods, tubing and other such property cannot be found; that the value of the casing, rods, tubing and other such property was assessed and included in the assessments against the leasehold estate; that appellee had a lien upon the casing, rods, tubing and other property to secure the payment of the taxes, penalty, interest and cost for the entire period in question; that the casing, rods, tubing and other such property was the only security appellee had for the taxes in question; that the removal of the casing, rods, tubing and other such property from the leasehold estate destroyed the value of the lien appellant had for the taxes assessed and that the sale of the leasehold from Maro Company, Inc., to L. M. Sexton on February 10, 1941, was not bona fide but was a simulated sale not made in good faith.

Appellant's points Nos. 1 and 2 may be considered as one assignment of error. Appellant contends that it is personally liable for the taxes, penalty, interest and cost only for the years it owned the property, that is, 1934 to 1941, both inclusive, for which period of time it tendered same into the trial court, but that the property, that is, the casing, rods, tubing and other such property against which the appellee claimed a tax lien being personal property and no levy ever having been made on same by appellee for taxes due, there was no lien as against said personal property and, therefore, no security to be damaged by appellant. Appellant also...