Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Mann, 8019.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 8019.,8019. |
| Citation | 168 S.W.2d 212 |
| Parties | METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. MANN et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Johnson & Rogers, Henry, Bickett & Bickett, and L. M. Bickett, all of San Antonio, for relator.
Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and D. Burle Daviss and Geo. W. Barcus, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.
This is a mandamus proceeding, instituted directly in this court by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York, a foreign life insurance company, duly licensed to do business in this state, as relator, against Honorable Gerald C. Mann, Attorney General of Texas, and Honorable George H. Sheppard, State Comptroller of Texas, to compel them to approve a certain money claim of relator against the State of Texas. The facts are undisputed; therefore only law questions are involved.
The Forty-seventh Legislature of this state made an appropriation to pay this insurance company the sum of $7,920 as "refund of occupation tax erroneously collected." Acts 47th Legislature, 1941, c. 621, page 1365. The bill making this appropriation contains the following provision: Acts 47th Leg., p. 1372.
Since no franchise tax is involved in this action, the Secretary of State is neither a necessary nor a proper party.
The agreed statement of facts in this case shows that the relator paid to the state, as occupation taxes for the year 1939, levied under Article 4769 of our Civil Statutes, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 4769 the sum of $43,584.29. The agreed statement of facts further shows that included in the sum just mentioned was $7,920, which the relator did not owe. In other words, the relator paid as taxes $7,920 more than it owed, and more than was levied by the statute just above mentioned. It is this sum that the appropriation above described was made to refund. The respondents contend that the sum overpaid was paid voluntarily by the relator. The relator contends that such sum was paid by it under duress. It is admitted by both relator and respondents that if this overpayment was made under duress, relator is entitled to the relief here prayed for by it. On the other hand, it is admitted by all parties to this litigation that if such overpayment was not made under duress, relator is entitled to no relief whatever in this proceeding. Such admissions are in consonance with the well-settled law of this state. Austin National Bank v. Sheppard, 123 Tex. 272, 71 S.W.2d 242, and authorities there cited; National Biscuit Co. v. State, 134 Tex. 293, 135 S.W.2d 687; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Mann, 138 Tex. 242, 158 S.W.2d 477. In this connection, it is the law that duress in the payment of illegal taxes may be either express or implied, and the legal right and duty to repay is the same in each instance. Austin National Bank v. Sheppard, supra.
Before proceeding further we deem it necessary to mention certain of our insurance statutes. Such statutes are Subdivisions 1 and 13 of Article 4682, and Articles 4769, 4770, and 4775, of our Civil Statutes.
Subdivision 1 of Article 4682 makes it the duty of the Insurance Commissioner to execute our insurance laws and see that all laws respecting insurance and insurance companies are faithfully executed.
Subdivision 13 of Article 4682 makes it the duty of the Insurance Commissioner to furnish to insurance companies required to report to him the necessary blank forms for the statements or reports required. To our minds, such statute contemplates that the Insurance Commissioner has the power, and rests under the duty, to prescribe the forms of such reports; and, further, such statute contemplates that insurance companies shall conform their reports to the forms prescribed by the Commissioner, as long as such Commissioner acts within his legal rights.
At the time here involved, and so far as applicable here, Article 4769 read as follows: * * *"
The above statute levied an annual tax equal to three and three-fourths per cent. of gross premium receipts. Also, such statute provided for certain reductions, depending on certain contingencies not applicable here.
Article 4770 reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dallas County Community College v. Bolton
...fees and taxes coerced by financial penalties, loss of livelihood, or substantial damage to a business. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Mann, 140 Tex. 450, 168 S.W.2d 212 (1943) (threatened revocation of certificate of authority to transact insurance business for failure to pay void occ......
-
Camacho v. Samaniego
...or causes financial loss or closure of the business, this first element will be satisfied. See Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Mann, 140 Tex. 450, 168 S.W.2d 212, 215 (1943); Crow v. City of Corpus Christi, 146 Tex. 558, 209 S.W.2d 922, 924-25 (1948); State v. Connecticut General Life In......
-
State v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.
...134 Tex. 293, 135 S.W.2d 687; Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Mann, 138 Tex. 242, 158 S.W.2d 477; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York v. Mann, 140 Tex. 450, 168 S.W.2d 212; State v. Akin Products Co., 155 Tex. 348, 286 S.W.2d The crucial test is whether the taxpayer acted un......
-
State v. Akin Products Co.
...of the Supreme Court. Austin Nat. Bank (of Austin) v. Sheppard, Tex.Com.App., 123 Tex. 272, 71 S.W.2d 242; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Mann, 140 Tex. 450, 168 S.W.2d 212; National Biscuit Co. v. State, 134 Tex. 293, 135 S.W.2d 687; Corporation of City of Marshall v. Snediker, ......