Millhollon v. Stanton Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 244-3438.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL&gt
• Citation: 231 S.W. 332
• Parties: MILLHOLLON v. STANTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

231 S.W. 332

MILLHOLLON v. STANTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

(No. 244-3438.)^*

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

June 1, 1921.

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

Injunction suit by J. E. Millhollon against the Stanton Independent School District. Relief denied, and plaintiff appealed, defendant assigning cross-errors. Judgment affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (221 S. W. 1109), and plaintiff brings error. Judgments of trial court and Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and case remanded.

Stephen W. Pratt, of Cisco, Royall G. Smith, of El Paso, and Thos. R. Smith, of Colorado, Tex., for plaintiff in error.

Morrison & Morrison, of Big Springs, for defendant in error.

GALLAGHER, J.

The Stanton independent school district was originally incorporated for school purposes only, under the general laws of Texas, and as so created and constituted, lawfully and properly issued and sold certain bonds still outstanding, and by an election duly held the board of trustees were duly authorized to levy and collect an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on, and create a sinking fund for, the ultimate retirement of such bonds.

The Thirty-Fifth Legislature, by special act appearing as chapter 128, on page 510, of the published local and special laws of the regular session of such Legislature, Incorporated the Stanton independent school district, including therein its former territory and also additional territory.

This act creates the district, defines its boundaries, provides for the election of a board of trustees and the perpetuation thereof by subsequent elections, authorizes such board of trustees to organize, appoint necessary officers, levy, assess, and collect taxes, and receive all money apportioned to said district out of the available free school fund, and to exercise general authority in the matter of establishing and conducting public free schools in said district.

On July 25, 1918, by order of the board of trustees of said district, an election was held therein on proper petition to determine whether or not a tax, not to exceed 50 cents on the $100 assessed valuation of property within the district, should be levied for the support of public schools therein. The election resulted in favor of the tax levy, and no complaint of irregularities therein is made.

The board of trustees thereafter for the year 1918 levied a tax of 50 cents on the $100 valuation of all property in the new district, and directed, in accordance with the provisions of said act, that fifteen cents of such tax on the property in the old district be placed in the sinking fund, and that the remaining 35 cents of such tax on the property in the old district, and the entire 50 cents tax on the property in the newly added territory, be applied to maintenance.

J. B. Millhollon, the plaintiff in error, was the owner of certain property taxable for said year which was situated in the new territory added to the district by said act. Such property was regularly assessed, and the tax so levied against the same for said year amounted to $101.22. Millhollon failed to pay this tax.

The assessor and collector of taxes for said district was about to seize and sell certain personal property belonging to said Millhollon to satisfy such unpaid tax, whereupon Millhollon sued out a temporary injunction, restraining said school district, its board of trustees, and its assessor and collector of taxes, from seizing or selling any property belonging to him for the purpose of collecting such tax. On final hearing the trial court entered an order restraining the collection of 15 cents on the $100 of such tax so levied, but permitting the collection of the remaining thirty-five cents of such tax. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, 221 S. W. 1109.

Plaintiff in error contends that the special act of the Legislature creating said school district does not, either expressly or by implication, confer on its board of trustees the right or power to order an election to determine whether or not a maintenance tax of 50 cents on the $100, or any lesser sum, shall be levied and collected, but attempts to...