Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. City of Dallas
| Decision Date | 06 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 3308,3308 |
| Citation | 282 S.W.2d 723 |
| Parties | TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. The CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Thompson, Knight, Wright & Simmons, Pinkney Grissom, David M. Kendall, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.
H. P. Kucera, City Atty., Ted P. MacMaster, Asst. City Atty., R. A. McBean, Asst. City Atty., Dallas, for appellee.
This suit was brought by the City of Dallas as plaintiff against the defendant Insurance Company to recover personal property taxes levied upon the furniture and fixtures kept by the defendant in its branch offices in the City of Dallas, such taxes having been levied and assessed for the years 1931 through 1953. Defendant is a domestic life insurance company with its principal office and place of business in the City of Galveston, Texas.
The defendant Insurance Company plead that under the provisions of Article 3.15 of the Insurance Code of 1951 (formerly Article 4739 R.C.S.1925) the taxable situs of the personal property involved was Galveston, Texas, and that the City of Dallas was without authority or power to levy and assess taxes on such property.
By amended petition the City of Dallas plead that Article 3.15 of the Insurance Code of 1951 was not applicable to the property in question, and in the alternative, that if the article did apply that it was unconstitutional.
Trial was before the court without a jury, which rendered judgment for the plaintiff City for the taxes sued for. The Trial Court found, among other things, that Article 3.15 of the Insurance Code did not apply to fix the situs of the personal property involved in this suit for tax purposes, and that in the alternative, if it did apply, it was unconstitutional.
There are two dominant questions involved in this appeal: (1) Does Article 3.15 of the Insurance Code fix the situs of the personal property herein involved, for tax purposes, to be in Galveston, Texas, and (2) Is Article 3.15 constitutional?
Defendant Insurance Company was organized under the laws of Texas for the purpose of writing life insurance and maintaining its office and principal place of business in Galveston, Texas. Branch offices are located in other cities, including Dallas.
Chapter 3 of the Insurance Code of 1951 deals entirely with life, health, and accident insurance. Article 3.01 defines a domestic company as a life, health or accident insurance company incorporated and formed in the State of Texas. Article 3.15 provides in substance that any domestic company may deposit with the State Treasurer securities in which its capital stock is invested, or other securities equal in amount to its capital stock; that the State Treasurer shall execute a receipt for same; that such company may advertise such fact and print a copy of the Treasurer's receipt on its policies; that such company's officers shall be permitted to examine such securities, and detach interest coupons; and the deposit provided for shall be maintained as long as the company shall have outstanding any liability to its policyholders in this state. The last sentence of the Article reads as follows:
'For the purpose of state, county, and municipal taxation, the situs of all personal property belonging to such companies shall be at the home office of such company.'
Prior to the enactment of the Insurance Code of 1951, the provisions of Article 3.15 were found in Article 4739 R.C.S.1925. Both statutes were derived from Acts of 1909, Chapter 108, which was a comprehensive statute passed by our Legislature covering life, accident, and health companies, and entitled, among other things, an act to 'fix the situs of personal property of such companies for purpose of taxation'.
Plaintiff City contends that the words 'all personal property' in the last sentence of Article 3.15 applies to securities only, since the first portion of the Article concerns securities. We believe, however, the mere fact that Article 3.15 deals with the deposit of securities in the first portion is no justification to limit the meaning and application of the last sentence to securities only. To do so would be violative of the plain and unambiguous meaning of the words 'all personal property'. We believe that the words 'all personal property' to be plain language of easy understanding, and that same means exactly that which is said and expressed, namely, 'all personal property'.
From the foregoing we conclude and hold that Article 3.15 of the Insurance Code of 1951 as well as the Articles from which it was derived, fixes the situs of all personal property of a domestic life insurance company to be at the home office of such company, which in the instant case is Galveston, Texas.
It now remains to determine whether or not Article 3.15 (supra) is constitutional. The plaintiff City contends that the Act is unconstitutional as being violative of Sections 1, 2 and 11 of Article VIII, and Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution of Texas, and further, that same was violative of Article 1177 R.C.S. and of Chapter XII, Section 181 of the Charter of the City of Dallas.
Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dallas v. Texas Prudential Ins. Co.
...constitutional. The judgment of the trial court was accordingly reversed and judgment was rendered that the City of Dallas take nothing. 282 S.W.2d 723. This Court is particularly concerned with these questions: 1. Did the makers of the Constitution by adopting Article 8, Section 11 wherein......