State v. Mallet Land & Cattle Co.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1935
• Docket Number: No. 6977.,6977.
• Citation: 88 S.W.2d 471
• Parties: STATE et al. v. MALLET LAND & CATTLE CO., Inc.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 471

88 S.W.2d 471

STATE et al. v. MALLET LAND & CATTLE CO., Inc.

No. 6977.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December 4, 1935.

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

Suit by the State and another against the Mallet Land & Cattle Company, Incorporated. Judgment for plaintiffs was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals [84 S.W.(2d) 260], and plaintiffs bring error.

Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and judgment of trial court affirmed.

Carl E. Ratliff, of Levelland, and Vickers, Campbell & Evans, of Lubbock, for plaintiff in error.

E. L. Klett, of Lubbock, for defendant in error.

SHARP, Justice.

The State of Texas and Hockley county recovered judgment against Mallet Land & Cattle Company, Inc., a nonresident corporation, for the sum of $15,154.24, and a tax lien upon approximately 38,000 acres of land situated in Hockley county was foreclosed. The Court of Civil Appeals at Amarillo reversed and remanded the cause. 84 S.W.(2d) 260. A writ of error was granted.

The plaintiffs in error will be designated as the state, and the defendant in error as the cattle company. The cattle company contends that its property in Hockley county was illegally assessed, and that the values placed thereon for taxation by the taxing authorities were not equal and uniform, as compared to the value placed on other property, and were discriminatory against the cattle company. The state's petition alleged taxes due upon each of the several tracts of land owned by the cattle company for the years 1932 and 1933. The delinquent tax records and the assessment rolls show that the taxes were assessed separately against the various tracts of land. It is shown that 98 per cent. of the land in Hockley county is subject to cultivation. It is also shown that only 40 per cent. of the land is in cultivation, and that 60 per cent. is in ranches. The cattle company's land is used principally for ranch purposes.

In 1927, a small tract of the land involved here was assessed at $10 per acre. The record further shows that the agent of the cattle company rendered its lands for taxation for the years 1932 and 1933 at different prices, ranging from $5 to $10 per acre. The board of equalization, being dissatisfied with this rendition for the year 1932, fixed the price at a uniform figure of $10 per acre. In 1933, the board of equalization fixed the value of the land for tax purposes, as follows: 32,041 acres at $10 per acre; 4,036.5 acres at $8.20 per acre; and 2,518 acres at $5 per acre. These raises by the board of equalization for 1932 and 1933 were protested by the cattle company. It is unquestioned that the cattle company rendered its personal property in 1933 at $19,230, and that the board of equalization reduced the rendition to $14,000.

In response to special issues, the jury answered as follows:

(1) That the board of equalization did not appraise the cattle company's lands in excess of the true value of said lands for the years 1932 and 1933.

(2) That the true and full value per acre of the cattle company's lands in controversy on January 1st of the years 1932 and 1933, was $30 per acre.

(3) That in the years 1932 and 1933 the cattle company's tracts of land in controversy were not less valuable per acre than the improved tracts of similar land belonging to others in Hockley county.

(4) That the board of equalization did not appraise the improved agricultural land in Hockley county without taking into consideration the value of the improvements thereon for the years 1932 and 1933.

(5) That the lands of the cattle company were valued by the board of equalization for the years 1932 and 1933 on substantially the same pro rata basis, as compared to the true value, as were the other lands and properties in Hockley county.

We have examined the record, and think the evidence sustains the findings of the jury.

The judgment recites that the respective tracts of land were separately assessed for taxes for each year, and it was decreed that the amounts of taxes due for such years were foreclosed upon each tract with a separate...