Weinberg v. Molder, No. 3532

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtTIREY; HALE
Citation312 S.W.2d 393
PartiesAbe WEINBERG et al., Appellants, v. L. D. MOLDER et al., Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 3532
Decision Date27 March 1958

Page 393

312 S.W.2d 393
Abe WEINBERG et al., Appellants,
v.
L. D. MOLDER et al., Appellees.
No. 3532.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco.
March 27, 1958.
Rehearing Denied April 24, 1958.

H. J. Loe, Fannin & Fannin, Fort Worth, for appellants.

R. A. Kilpatrick, Cleburne, John L. Sullivan, Denton, for appellees.

TIREY, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order denying application for writ of injunction. Appellants, who are taxpayers of the Burleson Independent School District located in Johnson and Tarrant counties, brought this suit on June 7, 1957 against the Board of Trustees of the School District, seeking both temporary and permanent injunctions, wherein they sought (1) to prohibit the issuance and sale of bonds authorized at a bond election held in the District on October 27, 1956; and (2) to restrain the school official from collecting all school taxes in the School District for the year 1957. On June 25, 1957, a preliminary hearing was had before the Hon. Clarence Ferguson, Judge of the 77th Judicial District, who granted temporary injunction prohibiting the issuance and sale of the bonds during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter, on November 12, 1957, the case came on for trial on the merits before the Hon. Thos. C. Ferguson, Judge of the 33rd Judicial District, who, after hearing certain special exceptions urged by appellees, which were directed to the allegations contained in appellants' pleadings seeking to invalidate said bond election and restrain the issuance and sale of the bonds, was of the view that appellees' exceptions should be sustained, and the appellants having declined to amend, the court dismissed appellants' suit pertaining to said bond election. Thereafter the cause proceeded to trial, and after appellants had presented their evidence and rested, the appellees presented their motion for instructed verdict, which motion the court indicated would be overruled because the court was of the opinion that there were certain fact issues which should be submitted to the jury concerning the validity of tax assessments as to particular individuals because of excessiveness or lack of fair hearing before the Equalization Board, and thereupon the appellants requested the court to be permitted to waive any issues concerning individual citizens only and to have the motion determined solely upon the request for injunction as contained in their prayer (which was to the effect to declare all of the actions of the Tax Assessor and Collector and the Equalization Board for the School District in connection with the assessing and equalizing taxes for the year 1957 to be void, and to enjoin permanently all of the defendants from levying or collecting taxes for the year 1957 in said School District, and to enjoin the issuance and sale of the school bonds) set out in their Second Amended Original Petition, provided that such waiver and any action of the court should be without prejudice to any of the plaintiffs as individuals, and in respect to their own individual properties, or maintaining an action to cancel any tax lien or enjoin the enforcement thereof, or to defend against any tax suit brought for the

Page 395

recovery of any taxes due the School District for the year 1957 upon the ground of invalidity of any assessment for that year. The parties thereupon stipulated that the court could pass upon appellees' motion for instructed verdict without submitting or considering any issues concerning the validity of any individual assessment, without prejudice to the rights of the individual, and that the plaintiffs' action be limited for this purpose to an action for the cancellation of the assessments as a whole, or enjoining of the assessments as a whole for the year 1957, or as applicable to the plaintiffs as a group. Thereupon the court sustained appellees' motion for instructed verdict and withdrew the case from the jury. The judgment in effect decrees that plaintiffs, who are appellants here, are not entitled to an injunction enjoining the levy and collection of taxes based on the actions and proceedings had and performed by the District's Tax Assessor-Collector and the Equalization Board for the School District in connection with assessing and equalizing taxes for the year 1957, or to recover any order or relief holding same to be void and of no force and effect or permanently enjoining the appellees from levying or collecting taxes for the year 1957 based upon the tax assessment and equalization proceedings heretofore had. The court's order then provides that each individual taxpayer shall have the right to maintain any action for the cancellation of lien or to enjoin the collection of the tax or to defend against tax suits based upon excessive valuation or denial of fair hearing or other invalidity of the individual's assessment for the year 1957. Appellants excepted to all of the foregoing actions that were adverse to them, and appellees excepted to all of the actions adverse to them, and the appellants gave notice of appeal to this court and have duly perfected their appeal.

Appellants say that the court erred (1) in dismissing appellants' cause of action insofar as they sought an injunction to prohibit the issuance and sale of the bonds; and (2) in instructing a verdict against appellants as to that part of their suit wherein they sought an injunction to restrain the collection of the 1957 school taxes.

It is the appellants' contention that their suit consists of two causes of action; the first one being one for injunction to prohibit the issuance and sale of school bonds, and the other to restrain the collection of 1957 school taxes.

Appellants went to trial on their second amended original petition. This petition alleges generally that appellants' grounds for injunction are to the effect that the bond issue was passed only because the voters of the School District were misled and fraudulently deceived into believing that only a slight increase in taxes would be necessary to support the bonds. We quote Sections 1 and 2 in Paragraph III of such pleading:

'(1) The bond issue was passed at the election held on October 27, 1956, because the qualified voters in the School District were misled into believing that only a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • City of Corpus Christi v. Davis, 1347
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • October 19, 1978
    ...must accept the rendition made by the taxpayer whether the assessor agrees with the taxpayer's valuation or not. Weinberg v. Molder, 312 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1958, writ ref'd n. r. e.). The Corpus Christi City Charter specifically adopts the provisions of "Articles 1048 to 1056, bo......
  • Brooks County Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Tipperary Energy Corp., 04-92-00136-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 30, 1992
    ...taxpayer because a refund is barred by the doctrine of "estoppel by rendition." According to taxing entities, under Weinberg v. Molder, 312 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.) and State v. Harper, 188 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1945, writ ref'd), cert. denied,......
  • In re Bruce Bishop, 05-18-01333-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 6, 2020
    ...App.—Tyler 1978, writ dism'd); Kennedy v. Burnet Indep. Sch. Dist., 474 S.W.2d 742 (Tex. App.—Austin 1971, no writ); Weinberg v. Molder, 312 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. App.—WacoPage 16 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Rawson v. Brownsboro Indep. Sch. Dist., 263 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1953, writ ref'd ......
  • Ex parte Progreso Independent School Dist., 2503
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 17, 1983
    ...1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Kelsey v. Corbett, 396 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Weinberg v. Molder, 312 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Rawson v. Brownsboro Independent School District, 263 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1953, writ ref......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • City of Corpus Christi v. Davis, No. 1347
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • October 19, 1978
    ...must accept the rendition made by the taxpayer whether the assessor agrees with the taxpayer's valuation or not. Weinberg v. Molder, 312 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1958, writ ref'd n. r. e.). The Corpus Christi City Charter specifically adopts the provisions of "Articles 1048 to 1056, bo......
  • Brooks County Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Tipperary Energy Corp., No. 04-92-00136-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 30, 1992
    ...taxpayer because a refund is barred by the doctrine of "estoppel by rendition." According to taxing entities, under Weinberg v. Molder, 312 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.) and State v. Harper, 188 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1945, writ ref'd), cert. denied,......
  • In re Bruce Bishop, No. 05-18-01333-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 6, 2020
    ...App.—Tyler 1978, writ dism'd); Kennedy v. Burnet Indep. Sch. Dist., 474 S.W.2d 742 (Tex. App.—Austin 1971, no writ); Weinberg v. Molder, 312 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. App.—WacoPage 16 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Rawson v. Brownsboro Indep. Sch. Dist., 263 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1953, writ ref'd ......
  • Ex parte Progreso Independent School Dist., No. 2503
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 17, 1983
    ...1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Kelsey v. Corbett, 396 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Weinberg v. Molder, 312 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Rawson v. Brownsboro Independent School District, 263 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1953, writ ref......
  • 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