Zachry v. City of Uvalde

• Decision Date: 18 December 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 8314.)
• Citation: 24 S.W.2d 517
• Parties: ZACHRY et al. v. CITY OF UVALDE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

24 S.W.2d 517

ZACHRY et al. v. CITY OF UVALDE.

(No. 8314.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

December 18, 1929.

Rehearing Denied February 19, 1930.

Appeal from District Court, Uvalde County; L. J. Brucks, Judge.

Suit by the City of Uvalde against J. H. Zachry and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Atlas Jones, of San Antonio, for appellants.

Will Glover, of Uvalde, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

Appellee sought to recover, and did recover, of appellants, taxes in the sum of $227.50, together with interest and penalties, the whole sum being $268.38 and costs, with a foreclosure of a lien on certain land in the city of Uvalde. The judgment was based on the verdict of a jury instructed by the court. Appellants admitted owing taxes in the sum of $175.50, which they claimed to have tendered to appellee, but the tender was not accepted.

The appeal seems to be based largely on the claim that the board of equalization placed an excessive valuation on the land, and appellants, in effect, admit the regularity of all other proceedings as well as the statement of a case by the petition when they tendered a less sum than was claimed by appellee. The special exceptions were hypercritical and were properly overruled. The petition stated a good cause of action, and propositions 1 and 2 are overruled.

The board of equalization was a legal body, and its valuation of appellants' property was final and conclusive and could only be attacked directly through the adjudication of a court possessed with power to inquire into the justice of the increase in valuation.

The suit was for delinquent taxes, and the only defenses to a suit for the collection of delinquent taxes are:

"1. That the defendant was not the owner of the land * * *

"2. That the taxes sued for have been paid, or

"3. That the taxes sued for are in excess of the limit allowed by law, but this defense shall apply only to such excess." Rev. Stats. art. 7329.

Neither of these defenses was offered by appellants. The article cited has been held valid. City of Rising Star v. Dill (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 652, affirmed by the Supreme Court 269 S. W. 769.

It was admitted by appellants that the property was rendered for taxation in 1927, at a valuation of $6,000, and, when notified that the board of equalization would seek to raise the valuation, appellants' attorney inquired of J. H. Zachry, one of the appellants, as to the true value of the land, and was informed...