Von Rosenberg v. Lovett

Decision Date02 December 1914
Docket Number(No. 5391.)
Citation173 S.W. 508
PartiesVON ROSENBERG et al. v. LOVETT.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Travis County; Geo. Calhoun, Judge.

Action by W. H. C. Lovett against William Von Rosenberg and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.

John E. Shelton and E. C. Gaines, both of Austin, for appellants. Fiset, McClendon & Shelley, of Austin, for appellee.

Statement of the Case.

JENKINS, J.

The suit arose out of a petition for injunction, and is based on the power of the commissioners' court of Travis county to make the following contract:

"State of Texas, County of Travis.

"Know all men by these presents: That this contract and agreement, entered into this day by and between the county commissioners' court of Travis county, Tex., party of the first part, and J. Gregg Hill, W. R. Long and J. W. Maxwell, parties of the second part, witnesseth:

"That said parties of the second part agree to point out to the tax assessor of Travis county, Tex., personal property which the owner or owners, or their legal representatives have either failed or refused to assess their taxes for the year 1912, or years prior thereto and such property is not on the county tax rolls and have never been discovered or found by the said tax assessor of Travis county and placed on said rolls.

"That said parties of the second part further agree to furnish such proof to the said tax assessor that such personal taxes should be legally assessed and taxes collected thereon for 1912 or prior years.

"For and in consideration of the services rendered by the said Hill, Long and Maxwell, as hereunto stated the commissioners' court of Travis county, Tex., hereby agree to pay the said Hill, Long and Maxwell, parties of the second part, a fee of twenty-five (25) per cent. of the full amount of the county taxes actually collected on such personal property as has been pointed out by them and assessed as hereinbefore stated.

"And the said Hill, Long and Maxwell are hereby authorized to file suit in any court of competent jurisdiction in Travis county, Tex., to enforce the payment of any such personal taxes so assessed.

"It is expressly agreed and understood that this contract shall not apply to any assessment of personal property placed on the assessment roll by the tax assessor of Travis county up to the date of the meeting of the commissioners' court as a board of equalization, but to all personal taxes placed on said roll after said date. It is expressly agreed and understood that the county commissioners' court shall have the right to contract with any person or firm for the collection of the taxes on personal property not heretofore rendered for taxes where the same is discovered in any other county of this state or any other state.

"This contract shall be in force for two years from the date hereof. Witness our hands at Austin, on this the 13th day of May, 1912," etc.

Omitting formal parts, appellee's petition reads as follows:

"Your petitioner, W. H. C. Lovett, hereinafter styled plaintiff, complaining of Wm. Von Rosenberg, county judge of Travis county, Tex., Tom Anderson, county commissioner of precinct No. 1, Travis county, Tex., W. L. Dodgen, county commissioner precinct No. 2, Travis county, Tex., R. E. Barker, county commissioner precinct No. 3, Travis county, Tex., Calvin Hughes, county commissioner precinct No. 4, Travis county, Tex., J. Gregg Hill, W. R. Long, J. W. Maxwell, and E. C. Gaines, hereinafter styled defendants, respectfully represents:

"(1) That the plaintiff is a resident of Travis county, Tex. That the defendant Wm. Von Rosenberg is the county judge of Travis county, Tex., and as such is a member of and presiding officer of the commissioners' court of Travis county, Tex. That the defendants Tom Anderson, W. L. Dodgen, R. E. Barker, and Calvin Hughes are county commissioners of precincts Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, in Travis county, Tex., and the said judge and the said commissioners constitute the commissioners' court of Travis county, Tex.; and they are sued herein in their said official capacities, together with their successors in office. That all of the defendants herein reside in Travis county, Tex.

"(2) That the plaintiff is, and has been for many years prior hereto, a bona fide resident and citizen of Travis county, Tex. That he is, and has been for many years, a qualified voter in said county, and owns real estate and other property in said county, upon which he pays state and county taxes in said county, and that he is interested in the subject-matter of this suit and has a right to institute the same.

"(3) That heretofore, to wit, on or about the 13th day of May, A. D. 1912, the commissioners' court of Travis county, which was then composed of R. E. White, county judge, and the following commissioners, Tom Anderson, W. L. Dodgen, R. E. Barker, and Jack Booth, who were commissioners respectively of precincts Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, entered into a certain purported contract with the defendants herein J. Gregg Hill, W. R. Long, and J. W. Maxwell, whereby the said Hill, Long, and Maxwell agreed to point out to the tax assessor of Travis county, Tex., personal property which the owner or owners or their legal representatives have either failed or refused to assess their taxes for the year 1912, or years prior thereto; such property not being on the county tax rolls and never having been discovered or found by the said tax assessor of Travis county and placed on said rolls. And said Hill, Long, and Maxwell further agreed to furnish such proof to such tax assessor that such personal taxes should be legally assessed and taxes collected thereon for 1912 or prior years, and that, in consideration for such service, the said commissioners' court of Travis county, Tex., agreed to pay to the said Hill, Long, and Maxwell the sum of 25 per cent. of the full amount of the county taxes actually collected on such personal property as might be pointed out by them and assessed as in said contract provided. And the said Hill, Long, and Maxwell were further authorized to file suit in any court of competent jurisdiction in Travis county, Tex., to enforce the payment of any such personal taxes so assessed. But it was provided that such contract should not apply to any assessment of personal property placed on the assessment roll of the tax assessor of Travis county up to the date of the meeting of the commissioners' court as a board of equalization, but to all personal taxes placed on said roll after said date, and, further, that the county commissioners' court should have the right to contract with any person or firm for the collection of taxes on personal property not theretofore rendered for taxes, where the same is discovered in any other county of this state or any other state, and that said contract should remain in full force for two years from the date thereof; that said contract was attempted to be executed by the said parties thereto and was attempted to be ratified, confirmed, and made valid by an order of said county commissioners' court, spread upon the minutes of said court on the 13th day of May, 1912, which said order is order No. 868 and a true and correct copy thereof, together with a true and correct copy of said purported contract, are hereto attached, marked `Exhibit A,' and hereby made a part of this petition for all purposes.

"(4) Your petitioner further says that the defendant herein E. C. Gaines has acquired some right or interest in said purported contract, the exact nature and character of which is not known to your petitioner, but is well known to the defendants.

"(5) That, after the execution of said purported contract, the said defendants, Hill, Long, Maxwell, and Gaines, did present certain properties to the said tax assessor and said commissioners' court, after the date of the meeting of the said commissioners' court as a board of equalization as provided in said purported contract, which said taxes have been regularly assessed on personal property against residents and citizens of Travis county, Tex., that 25 per cent. of the amount of said taxes so assessed aggregates the sum of $3,064.02, and that of said amount of taxes so assessed there has been collected an amount, 25 per cent. of which aggregates the sum of $827.04, and that said sum of $827.04 has been paid over to the defendants Hill, Long, Maxwell, and Gaines; that the aforesaid present commissioners' court of Travis county, Tex., recognizes said purported contract as a valid, subsisting, and binding obligation upon said court and upon the county of Travis, and are proceeding to collect the remainder of said taxes, and will, unless restrained, pay over to the said defendants Hill, Long, Maxwell, and Gaines 25 per cent. of such taxes as are collected in compliance with the terms of said purported contract.

"(6) That the said purported contract is absolutely void and unenforceable, in that same was beyond the power of the commissioners' court of Travis county, Tex., and was illegal, and it was not within the power or jurisdiction of said county commissioners' court of Travis county, Tex., to make any agreement to pay over to the defendants or any other person any percentage of taxes collected on unrendered personal property, or any other sum in consideration for the services agreed to be performed by said defendants Hill, Long, and Maxwell in said purported contract. But all the duties and services agreed to be performed in said purported contract are duties and obligations by law imposed upon the tax collector, tax assessor, commissioners' court, and county attorney.

"(7) That, as aforesaid, your petitioner is a bona fide resident citizen, qualified voter, and taxpayer of the said Travis county, Tex., and is interested in the disposition of the county funds and the proceeds of the aforesaid taxes to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State v. Barton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1951
    ...relating to alibi; they do not mean 'satisfy' or 'preponderate' beyond a doubt.' United Dentists, Inc., v. Commonwealth, 162 Va. 347, 173 S.W. 508, 511, did not involve a criminal prosecution and the burden upon the state was proof only by a preponderance. Refusal of defendants' instruction......
  • Egner v. States Realty Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1947
    ...rather than to those of the person doing the supervising. Fluet v. McCabe, 299 Mass. 173, 12 N.E.2d 89. As said in Von Rosenberg v. Lovett, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W. 508, 514: "To supervise does not mean to do the work in detail, but to see that it is done. It means to oversee, with power of d......
  • Arnold v. Custer County
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1928
    ...to do it in person and it may be done by other means, such other means may be used. Prothero v. Board of Commissioners, supra; Von Rosenberg v. Lovett, supra. the latter case, the opinion says: "It would be a vain thing to impose upon any one a duty, and deny him the means whereby he could ......
  • Fancher v. Bd. of Com'rs of Grant County.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1921
    ...property. Another case upholding the power of the commissioners to employ persons to search for omitted property is Von Rosenberg v. Lovett (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S. W. 508. In Texas they have no statute apparently casting the duty upon any public official to search for and place upon the tax......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT