*1 drilling an offset adequate relief in relator have injunction. adequate warrant other relief than To well or allege injunction, petition detailed should issuance injury be to the and extent that would facts as nature are, relief. and as to such other There suffered relator true, petition filed in the District intervention is Court, copy petition exhibit attached as an to the which mandamus, allegations injury want with reference to general relief, allegations adequate are in their but nature, further, many conclusions, they are of them but allegations by the part petition verified not a prayed for. relief affidavit relator it seeks petition to for writ of mandamus Permission to file supersedeas compel judge trial fix the bond amount of alleged refused, therefore, are petition because facts prevent the fur- insufficient for the issuance drilling proceed- pending in this ther of the well the decision ing, de- injunction a of such because without issuance awarding would futile cision the writ mandamus be ineffective. preju- permission petition is

Refusal of to file the without right again judge to request the trial dice of relator supersedeas bond, of his fix the amount in the event of a filing petition writ so, present for refusal to do another injunction containing proper averments of mandamus and herein indicated. Greyhound Lines, Fort Southland Worth

Incorporated. Decided No. 6119. November (67 W., 361.) Series, 2d *2 Young, Jr., and C. Floyd, B. Geo. Rouer, M. R. E.R. J. Worth, appellant. Kemple, all of Fort trans- appellee motor is a appearing the record from It carrying passengers for hire engaged company portation ¡between Texas, and other cities City Fort Worth keep use conducting its business necessary it is equipment in Fort Worth motor certain amount tangible property, was- being personal equipment, motor said subject although Worth, City Fort to taxation company is in said principal place business of domicile and Refrigerator Transit Antonio, Texas. Union of San S., 194, 26 Kentucky, 199 U. Company v. Commonwealth 490; W., Cooley Taxation Ct., 36, Ky., Sup. S. 451; Guaranty Ins. Co. (4th Ed.) vol. sec. Life Tyler W., 189; City Texas, 209, v. Coker Austin, S. Guffey Petro- W., 729; City (Civ. App.), of Galveston 585; S., art. 7153. R. (Civ. App.), 113 leum Co. appellee’s petition for appeared It law, remedy if that full, complete but adequate had a *3 petition would still it appeared of said fact had not on the face did not because entitled to relief not be necessary for it negative that would be all essential matters right Rosen- allege v. of action. Gillis in order to establish a 108, 243; Hagar No. heimer, Texas, Dist. 64 v. Reclamation Mfg. 569; 663, Ed., S., Ct., Sup. 111 4 28 L. Gorham U. Ct., S., 265, Sup. Y., 266 45 Co. v. 80; Tax of N. U. State Com. 649; Scanlan, Texas, Ry. 44 Red. v. Rio v. Grande Co. Johnson, Texas, 53 288. Worth, Sylvan Hanger McMahon,

Cantey, Fort & all of Lang, Antonio, appellee. of transportation company, in-

The stock of a motor having principal corporated under the of Texas and its laws large operating numerous cities office in the between State is, being shifted, State, only subject of the not but is fact, operating actually required di- shifted from one to be another, subject only in the vision to is to taxation 322; J., 309, p. office located. 61 C. sec. where J., 545; Gulf, City p. Ry. v. of 61 C. & F. Co. sec. C. S. 292; (Com. (2d) City Tyler App.), v. Dallas 16 S. W. 729; (Civ. App.), W., 124 Nav. Co. v. Coker S. Callender Or., 343, Pomeroy, Pac., 61 122 758. property dispute acquired had not a situs for taxa Worth, attempt purposes City to>

tion of Fort and the taxing property by a tax authorities collect City on such O’Connor, v. therefore void. Court Fort Worth was Texas, 334; (Com. App.), W., v. Baker Druesdow 493; (Com. App.), (2d) Tyler Rowland v. 5 S. W. 756. City of for the' Fort

The Assessor and Collector of Taxes making properties. duty on all Worth has the assessments city, for taxation Equaliza- in that and the Board of right tion has rolls, no to add to the assessment but duty equalize, has the adjust correct and the taxes assessed on said roll the Assessor and Collector of Taxes. Burnett, Texas, 3, W., Davis v. 13 S. equalization

Where a board of assesses tax which fact inception, void equity from its a court of in the State of enjoin Texas will sale of which is seized to satisfy tax, regard question such void without of whether complainant pursued legal has his Lively remedies. Missouri, Co., Texas, 545, v. Ry. K. T. 852; & 120 S. Hogg (Civ. App.), (2d) 353; Sheffield 38 S. Lum W. W., 142; Bowie, Cooley (4th Ed.) on Taxation vol. sec. 1640. Presiding Judge opinion SHORT delivered the

Mr. Appeals, Commission B. Section Supreme

This case is before the Court on two certified questions Appeals from the Court of Civil Judi- Second accompanying questions, cial District. The statement Appeals view of the fact Civil Court of has written opinion disposing case, a correct the nature the case being fully stated therein be summarized as follows: The appellee corporation engage duly is a domestic authorized to transporting passengers by the business of means of busses point State, having from one to another over the its domicile Antonio, Texas, in San Bexar where it renders for *4 personal property, pays taxation all of its and where the through appellant, duly taxes due thereon. its The authorized agent, seized one of these busses and advertised it for sale to pay appellant certain sums the claims were due for taxes Worth, City by of Fort reason of the fact that of some busses, averaging number, kept appellee these four in were City in appellee carrying the of Fort in Worth on its business. The upon

sued an trial of the case out and the injunction permanent, upon the district court the made and appeal Appeals, judgment to the Court of the of the trial Civil affirmed, court was but of the motion for consideration rehearing following questions Supreme certified were Court: plaintiff

1. motor are neces- “Can the busses kept sary City pur- to be in Fort for the used of Worth pose maintaining of be taxed its runs and schedules City Worth, they of Fort or must be taxed Antonio, principal place the admitted domicile and of business appellee? Equalization “Did the Board of of Fort power plaintiff’s Worth have the to add the motor busses to its tax roll?”

The Appeals certificate from the Court of Civil contains following: by appellant “It is not stay contended the same cars Worth, in Fort stay but that number of same cars Fort during year. plaintiff predicates Worth The its case theory that the transportation stock of a motor bus company, operating, incorporated such as it was under Texas, owning being laws of the State of busses that were operated large cities, between numerous and which busses were subject being operating another, shifted from one division to subject were city to taxation principal where its located; office position plaintiff being very precluded nature its business the idea of motor equipment acquiring busses a situs for taxable place other than the domicile and office plaintiff.

“Defendant contends that headquarters view the fact that the com- pany maintains division in Fort Worth ma- with shops chine permanently there, division officers located necessary is nently perma- have a certain number of busses there regular

in order to take care the runs schedules city.” and out of said opinion The Appeals reported the Court Civil (2d) (see below). S. W. approve opinion We Appeals, of the Court of Civil questions recommend that the certified be answered in accord ance therewith. opinion Appeals answering of the Commission of questions adopted

certified and ordered certified.

C. M. Chief Justice. Cureton, APPEALS, by OF OPINION OF COURT CIVIL BUCK, follows: *5 Mr. Justice Lines, Inc., Greyhound pray- “The Southland filed this suit

ing injunction against Mayor, Attorney, for City an the and City Manager City the Tax Collector and Assessor and the of Worth, officers, City the especially of Fort to restrain said and Floyd, acting selling J. Collector, M. Deputy Tax one bus, upon

motor satisfy which said tax collector had levied to alleged delinquent penalties alleged taxes and accrued to be alleged plaintiff due. It transpor- was that the awas motor company operating tation motor busses El between Paso and Dallas, Worth, Dallas, San Antonio and Fort Antonio San and points, granted pursuant authority and intermediate to the general laws of of the State Texas under certificates of con- necessity of venience and issued the Railroad Commission Texas, the Plaintiff denied State of that was indebted taxes, City delinquent per- Fort in of otherwise, Worth sum property plaintiff sonal or in that of of all duly legally City was Antonio, Texas, and rendered for taxation to the of San prescribed by city

and within the time Antonio, Texas, City charter and ordinances of San and of personal plaintiff only required pay that taxes property at the Texas under Constitution laws of State towit, business, place place of its domicile personal Antonio, none of the Bexar Texas. That San plaintiff property acquired has a situs for taxable City within Fort Worth. the territorial limits of application presented Bruce This to the Honorable Young, Judge Dis- of the 48th Judicial District Court fiat, thereon, trict, requiring plaintiff and he entered his $2500, make a in sum of bond consisting general answer, de- The defendant an filed special exceptions, be murrer and certain some of which quoted. generally specifically denied hereafter Defendants allegations pleaded plaintiff's petition specially that in law, plaintiff equity no or at had cause of action either Fort Worth provision that of the charter of the Board provided, Chapter the action Section appeal an Equalization unless shall be final all cases County, and District of Tarrant taken therefrom to the Court the Board of appeal had taken to the action of that no been relator, against making Equalization in the assessment plaintiff. pleaded supplemental petition, which Plaintiff filed a making the as- Equalization in the' action of the Board of kept habitually alleged against to be sessment motor busses inception void from because Fort Worth was admittedly sought taxed, are except taxes be plaintiff to the

due, paid by legally could rendered be (cid:127) sought to be taxed Antonio. That arbi- Equalization an assessed and trary which the Board of acquired a $55,000.00, valuation of had *6 Worth, County, Texas. Plain- purposes in Fort Tarrant taxable for on its fur- owed taxes office tiff further admitted day January, money the it had on hand the first of niture and garage 1930, supplies tools in its and and its stock of and used repair shop. question no made that the amount as- There is here, by plaintiff, appellee cor- on the rendition made sessed on the rect. The taxes due the rendition made of the taxes of during .appellee, case, trial of were tendered in the this court. judgment of The trial court in its decided that the sum due, paid registry the the amount into of the $115.50 nothing court, by that defendants its cross action and take against plaintiff principal (cid:127)over the for taxes the sum being $1364, the difference in amount the taxes levied by plaintiff on the rendered and the valuation by Equalization. judgment fixed A Board of was rendered $115.50, in favor of Fort amount Worth appellee. by shown to be due on rendered From judgment this of Fort its have Worth and officers appealed. OPINION.

n questions There are properly two that must be decided in disposing (1) rolling of this case: Is the stock of a motor transportation company, incorporated under laws having Texas, its operates office which State large Texas, between numerous cities in State with Antonio, payable its at domicile due and in Bexar portion payable Worth, or a due and Fort County; (2) Tarrant upon Was the assessment cars motor alleged January to be in Fort on Worth the amount thereon, alleged by holding of taxes to be due of the Board Equalization, ap- fixed made final the failure of the pellee appeal ques- from said action? We will discuss these tions in due order.

Appellant urges tangible personal property ac- can quire a county taxation in a other than owner, through city residence of the and that a which a company operates motorbus or in which it has one of di- right vision offices rolling stock, levy would have the tax such rolling proportion based which such stock rolling company, bears to the total stock operations stock as is used connection with out point. Texas, such division The Constitution of Article 11, provides: section property, persons corporations, whether owned “All taxation, paid the taxes be assessed for shall where situated.” *7 7153, Texas, 1925, pro-

Article Revised Civil Statutes vides : required personal, except property,

“All such as real and is otherwise, to be listed and assessed shall be listed and assessed situated; county personal in it where is and all subject temporarily taxation and removed from the State county, county the resi- shall be listed and assessed thereof, prin- dence of owner or in the where the cipal office of such owner is situated.” Austin, Guaranty Life Ins. Co. of Houston Texas, Judge Phillips, 209, 189, opinion by 108 voluntarily was held that had certain securities which been deposit several left on years, with the treasurer in Austin for state were This decision was taxable of Austin. evidently finding securities were based that such voluntarily deposit on with the state treasurer in Austin listed years. for several 26, L., 246,

In “Rolling R. it is Vol. C. sec. said: cars, Railroads. It has been held that

Stock of engines rolling intimately so other stock of a railroad are purposes railroad track connected with the and uses of the legislature power it as real it is within the to treat taxation; purposes in of a estate for the positive but absence rolling contrary personal enactment stock is property, the rail- as such in the in which taxable state incorporated. road was counties, a cities and towns of As between the different rolling

state, legislature regulate right the situs of plenary. no. stock for of taxation of course When is usually special provision held situs it is has been made rolling city railroad is the taxation of the stock of a company’s principal is in office the railroad town which rolling purposes, no located and that railroad stock has only temporarily stop of taxation in its trains towns which freight discharge passengers.” to receive and 963, Cyc., page says: is “Rolling equipment a railroad and other such stock through among counties apportioned the several sometimes taxation, passes, purpose local which proportion road for the mileage county. But road in each distribution, prop- statute, authorizing the absence of a the cor- erty kind the domicile of this is taxable place of poration, is, principal business.”' head office or McQuillin 324, Municipal Corporations, 2550, p. on sec. See it is said: personal property merely temporarily “But munici- within a pality usually not taxable.” English Cases, page 356,

Vol. American and Annotated says: general

“It pro- is the rule that in the absence of a statute viding otherwise, stock of a steam railroad com- pany purpose has principal its situs for the of taxation at the company, office personalty and its situs is that of its owner. erty prop- Under rule this it has been held that such

is taxable at the office the domicile of the company. Allen, Rep., Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. Fed. Marye Baltimore, Ry. Co., affirmed etc. U. S. Sup. 1037; Rep.,

U. S. Appeal Ct. Mary- Tax v.Ct. Western *8 Co., Md., 274; Philadelphia, land R. 50 Appeal etc. R. Co. v. Ct., Md., 397; Appeal Tax 50 Co., Tax Ct. v. Northern Cent. R. Md., 50 417. Philadelphia, Ry. Appeal Ct., Md., 397, etc. v.Co. Tax 50 plain rolling

the court said: ‘It is company stock of the permanent cannot legal have location or situs at two or more places time, at the same by positive statute; unless so declared conceding that it domicile, home, should be located at the or principal or corporation, clear, office of the it is as the law stands, now property there can be no well founded claim to assess this engines in Baltimore. The appellant and cars of the abiding have place permanent no State, location in this so as to incorporated become permanent with the other State, brought and are transiently here em- while ployed operations of the road. And whether such en- gines regarded personal cars be property, or as so far partaking realty of the nature of justify as to the denomina- fixtures, tion of them as principle equally movable applies. They have quality, positive movable and in the absence of legislation fixing a they given different situs can have no other them principal construction than the home or office of the corporation.’ The rule thus announced with reference to the situs for the rolling of taxation of the stock of a com- railroad pany has applicable been held sleeping to be to the taxation palace cars hired out company. Appeal to a railroad Tax Co., Md., Ct. Pullman Palace Car 50

The applicable rolling same rule is to the taxation of the stock of company a steam railroad within a state. It is held that such company pur. has its situs for the 22

poses the state at the residence of taxation within provided company, otherwise stat offices of the unless 56; Co., Iowa, Dubuque v. Illinois R. 39 Pacific R. ute. Cent. Mo., 17; Orange County, v. Alex 53 etc. R. Co. Co. v. Cass 176; Atlantic, andria, (Va.) Lyons, etc. R. 101 17 Grat. Co. following Va., Rep., 42 E. 932. And cases which see Morgan recognize Sangamon, this rule: etc. R. Co. v. 163; Person, L., 134, Ill., affirmed 32 N. J. State v. N. J. L., 566; Severance, Mo., State v. 378.” Morgan County, Sangamon,

In the R. Co. v. case etc. Ill., 163, county Decisions, 497, 55 Am. is held that Morgan, county, -did not and the town of Jacksonville said power railroad, have the to assess the stock of a because character, transitory and that the rules for assessment city purposes purposés. for for are the same as those Gulf, Dallas, (2d) Ry. City of See C. & S. F. Co. v. S. W. 292, by Appeals. involved the Commission of This case kept engines question as to whether or not which were switch permanently acquired in that in Dallas had taxation Appeals city. engines switch The had held that these Court of Civil years kept yards had in Dallas for several been use, permanently and that and had been dedicated to a local authority switch had the to assess said Dallas engines Appeals purposes. held for tax Commission Constitution, situated,” the 8, as used words “where purposes, com Art. sec. and that the means taxation maxim, sequuntur personam, basic mon law is still the mobilia *9 upon principle personal rests. which the taxation of opinion says: legislative pro- interpretation the “In addition to the question fix the of vision of in did not the Constitution taxation, rolling municipal the stock for where same depart- located, actually Attorney find that we the General’s advising taxing ment, charged duty authorities with the of given throughout long period years the state, the has for a of long- provision. same construction This to such constitutional given departmental entitled to be continued construction is also weight determining meaning in thereof. intent and true Co., Texas, 291, Municipal 3 of v. S. W. Denison Gas 117 450, (2d) 794; Crooker, Texas, County 248 S. Harris 112 652.” holding Attorney

In General’s connection with this Wayne office, may opinion that in an be well to state here Falls, Texas, by Somerville, County Attorney, de- Wichita Hold, 1930, 5, partmental opinion May to Dick dated addressed County, it was said: Attorney McLennan of District company which transportation motor of a “The stock prin- only through counties is taxable operated five is pical of the owner.” office Ky., Company, Covington v. Pullman of Kentucky, the court of Appeals W., 116, of of 89 S. Court cars on Pullman resort, tax three last sustained yards at in the three cars at all times basis that there were go being their ready out on Covington, made were of a was, however, trips. becanse tax sustained Said Kentucky, court ex- legislative prior enactment prop- pressly this character of differentiated holding: erty Kentucky, of a in resident this state personal property a resident of “While county given in the must be in for taxation the owner residence, personal property of' a non-resident his it is situated— in the where state must be assessed where it has a situs state.” Refrig- held,

The same court Union Commonwealth W., 490, Company, Ky., erator Transit 80 S. Refrigerator refrigerator belonging cars to the Union Company, Transit which had its home office Jefferson County, Kentucky, county, properly all were taxable said merely proportion and not were in use of said cars which part: said state. The court said question tendency “With of whether or not the modern legislative judicial enactment and trench construction is to legal maxim, sequuntur personam,’ ‘Mobilia we have nothing do; conceded, may freely and it be therefore case, regard this all that is said in this appellee upholds the counsel for is true. Our state original severity, enforces the ancient fiction in all its and we open destroy by do not understand that it is to us to construc- integrity statute, tion the plain of a the words of which are so may that ‘he who runs read/ And whatever be said as judicial jurisdictions, utterances of other our court has uniformly that, purpose taxation, held for the the situs of personal property every description is the domicile of Boske, Sheriff, Ky. Rep., owner. The case of Wren v. Law W., 279, presented appel- this state of facts: The *10 County. lant Wren resided in Scott He in Ken- owned a farm County, upon horses, ton mules, sheep, which he had cattle and eight years. personal property had been there for This resided, he listed with the assessor of Scott he where but, notwithstanding this, it was assessed for taxation in Ken- 24 County, and action ton he instituted an to restrain the Sheriff * ** selling County

of Kenton it for taxes. holding per- ‘We are referred to a number of decisions that property state, sonal of non-residents of the which has obtained state, Legislature provides, may, a situs in the if the so be taxed state; rule, doubt, apply in that and the no same would between Legislature the different state if the counties same so all, provided. question, legislative in- But the after is one tent.’ property only The court then that held could be taxed * * *

at domicile the owner. Langdon-Creasy Company In the case of v. Trustees of District, etc., 562, Ky., Owenton Common 116 School 823, corporation 381, Ky. Rep., appears 25 it Ky. had Law Covington, grocery a domicile It also had retail its sought County, Ky., goods its were to where store Owen approving purposes. court local This Wren be taxed for held — corpora- Boske, personal property v. Sheriff —that residence.' It taxable in its tion was legal residence, corporation appellant has a and not ‘As said: being corporations required report in the class of which are to auditor, manner as must be assessed same escape person. It us there no of a natural seems to is Legislature unquestioned from this conclusion. The has property purpose taxa- authority fix for the the situs * * * Boske tion. The case of Wren v. is made turn legislative intent, turn.’ and this is made case likewise so 295, Barrett, Ky., ‘In In case of Gates v. 79 is said: general, at movable to be assessed taxation Sheriff, See, Boske, also, v. place of the owner’s residence.’ Security Co., Safety Ky. Rep.,, Law Trust & Vault W., 524; Covington Wayne, Ky. Rep., Law S. W., 776; Sherley, Ky., of Louisville (3rd Ed.) p. 86, Cooley the rule is stated: Taxation vol. on state, personalty, person his ‘If is domiciled within law, also, be and he contemplation of has its situs there * * * How- respect place of it at the domicile. his taxed sequuntur personam univeral not ever, mobilia the maxim foundation, does not rest on Constitutional application, laws; express jnay its gives way before and a state tangible personal property within impose taxes on option, owner, allegiance of the limits, irrespective of the residence passing merely although not be true of this would state, having Id. 673: through therein.’ a situs respect corporation in place of a proper for the taxation ‘The *11 personalty place principal office, of its is the of its unless some prescribed by Burroughs Taxation, rule In other is statute.’ on p. 186, corporation ‘A the rule is thus stated: is taxable for domicile, personal property its at its which is the state of its creation, state, and within that town where has its ” principal place office or of business.’ Supervisors City County

See Board of of Elizabeth Newport News, Va., 764, Eng. Cases, 10 Amer. and Ann. long where it was held that it had been a settled law in Virginia company considered, that a railroad must be for the purposes taxation, having its residence or domicile at the place principal located, where its chief or office is and that its rolling stock, though daily upon the road and use absent locality greater part time, from such is to be con- belonging there, sidered as by and liable to taxation the munici- pality in principal opinion its office is located. The said: might agree “We with the learned commission that it would equitable, looking be more to the interest of the several munici- palities through railway passes, which the to distribute the course; revenue but, derived legis- from this in the absence of upon lative ubject, enactment stock of the New- port News and Railway Company Old Point and Electric is properly county long taxed in City, of Elizabeth so as that continues to be the home of chief office.” question as to the situs of vessels taxation is also analogous question somewhat to the now before us. In South- ern Pacific Kentucky, S., 63, Co. Commonwealth of 222 U. Ed., 96, 56 U. S. Law the court said:

“Since, therefore, purposes an artificial situs for of taxa- acquired by tion is marking by enrollment nor of a stern, name the taxable situs must be that of the owner, domicile of assigned since that situs to tan- gibles acquired an actual where situs has not been elsewhere. assigns tangibles, The ancient maxim which as well as in- tangibles, the situs of the owner for of taxation has protection its foundation in the which the owner receives from government residence, exception of his prin- and the ciple theory owner, based if the his own gives act, permanent elsewhere, location yield resulting the domicile must to the actual situs and * * * government. dominion of another Hays Steamship (17 S., Company v. Pacific Mail How. U. 596) appeared ships company prop- were the erty corporation, registered of a they New York and that were port York, at the capital represented of New where the them They regularly continuously for taxation. were was assessed coast, repaired were employed on the Pacific refitted and Benicia, in time the State of Con- from time to cerning California. *12 sought ships, the to these which of California State state, they upon theory an actual in that tax the had the court said: transportation pas- engaged ships the of

“These are in sengers, merchandise, etc., city the of New York and between Oregon. territory ports in the of Francisco and different engaged They the and commerce of the thus business are nations, touching ports country, highways the of at such demand, great places hold out and as these interest and which profits the realized or to the owners sufficient inducements expected respects ports to the realized. And so far as be cargoes States, they the are entered and harbors within United discharged board, independently any control laden on of or them, sanitary except respects municipal over as regulations with the are not inconsistent of local authorities as Government, the laws the to Constitution and of General belongs regulation foreign nations and the of commerce with the between States.

‘Now, quite apparent of if the State California impose question, any possessed authority tax in the to the Union, ports the the vessels other state in into the of which business, might prosecution their trade and entered the impose of trade or like the course also a tax. It be might great delay a other not as circumstances occasion ports port of other the San Francisco. on the Pacific accidental, depending But this is amount a matter particular port, nature business be transacted at etc., respect it, necessary can affect repairs, which in no property, question in view as to the situs of the right by the of taxation State.

‘Besides, vessel, leaving port her home whether commerce, visits, voyage trade, or in the course of her carry- business, ports, operations her in the several or confines ing profit- one, depend upon questions trade are that will business, able returns more evidence and will furnish no part personal property within that she become a has State, others. port than at the and liable to taxation at one them, tem- jurisdiction one She is within of all excluding per- porarily, wholly idea of purpose a ” abiding changing port.’ manently State, home her to motor We rule reference believe that the same holds with state, busses as with a office railroads though operating ports, between we have been vessels determining purposes for taxation the situs cited a case company. Avery motor In the case of stock of a bus Co., Pac., 340, Supreme Grocery et al. Interstate judgment whereby the Interstate Court Oklahoma affirmed a against Grocery Company permanent procured a seizing certain motor officials of the of Oklahoma State impose license tax vehicles. The court held that in order to upon foreign' using and other motor vehicles trucks commercial public Oklahoma, engaged highways in interstate com- merce, being but from time to time on business into vari- sent Oklahoma, ous an counties such vehicles must either have law, actual situs in the as at common situs for taxa- state or a discussing question tion created statute. part “situs” the court in said: *13 general may per-

“While it be stated as a rule of law that property except sonal has no situs that of the domicile of the owner, yet yields applied this doctrine it is to the whenever personal (The taxation property Prairie Cattle Co. v. Wil- liamson, Okla., 488, Pac., 937); is, necessary it is not the owner should reside within the state to render his personal property situated within the state liable to taxation. * Now, in controversy personal order to tax cars in as the.

property, they must have actual situs at common law in this state, Legisla- or a by situs for taxation created state,’ subject ture in ‘property order to be and thus this taxation.” appellee We conclude that not liable for taxes as against having

sessed paid County, stock in Tarrant Antonio, all of its taxes dues in Bexar as the pleadings and evidence show. alleged theWas assessment the motor cars to be Fort on, alleged January Worth on there- and amount of taxes by holding Equaliza- to be due of the Board of tion, fixed by appellee and made final the failure of the appeal Chapter from said action? sec. 1 of the charter of City provides: of Fort Worth

“The up Assessor and Collector make of Taxes shall including property City, of all for taxation in the assessments. franchise, license, occupation taxes, and there- and make rolls for, and, completion rolls, report on to the said he shall same City Council for power their author- action. He shall have and ity administer and all oaths in connection with by office, required by the or as Council otherwise

duties of his property by for the Assessor' and All real assessed taxes law. by listed and enrolled number of blocks and shall be Collector according lots, plats part the official or to recorded or lots Worth, City city by survey map En- of Fort or adopted by employed gineer, by other means the Council or or accurately property as- by describe the said the Assessor to duty It be the Assessor Col- sessed. shall also property has not make out lists of all real been lector to assessment, years, given for current former or either for rolls, tax the same been left off the to assess which has known, by if he be or if not number of the name of owner lots, parts so to define and describe with blocks or lots as accuracy, taken to enforce action be reasonable assessed, paid, if the same the collection the taxes so are prescribed for the collection of taxes on as is herein given supplementing the rolls with in for When assessment. previous rolls, the taxes the taxes on omitted charged against delinquent the said shall be estimated property according levying ordinances taxes years from the rolls.” the said real was omitted estate appointment provides of the said charter

Section Council, Equalization to be com- of a Board of posed and collector and other members assessor two council, acquainted real well with be selected who are designated values, estate of whom shall Chairman one be And that section said Board the other as Vice-Chairman. provides: further *14 Council, duty

“It the assess- shall be the the as soon as completed, refer the City to ment of rolls of taxes due the are duty to Equalization, it shall be to the Board of same whose equalize all neces- the on said rolls and to make taxes assessed end; sary adjustments and, in addition correction and to granted Charter, by they also powers the this shall to them powers perform as the same the same duties have the County and regard the to of this State Commissioners’ Courts equalization property there- for taxation and the assessment of, governed procedure in this and in their and acts shall be relating respect to provided by as now the laws this State equalization County by Commis- the taxes said of State and foregoing, Board sioners’ In addition to the the said Courts. sitting, compel production power, the shall have the when to perti- documents, stocks, papers books, of all and other bonds investigation, produced nent to them to be before investigation persons, any person or of the taxable values of having owning corporation property firm or or within the cor- porate City subject limits of the to taxation. Said Board shall power any injustice inequality have full to correct mistake or or property, same, in the assessment of the rendition of or in the payment taxes, power and shall have to correct such mis- therefor; may takes and make redress and said Board add property therefrom, to the rolls omitted either for the cur- year previous years, lawfully rent or for within taxable City. majority said A of the said Board shall constitute quorum Secretary City for the transaction of business. The or his assistants shall be ex-officio the Clerk of said Board. Council, by City two members of Board selected serving Equalization, while on the Board said shall receive compensation may provided by as be for them the Coun- cil. The Assessor and Collector shall receive no additional pay Immediately upon completion for his work. of said work Equalization place the said Board of shall their certificate rolls, the them, by said with a brief statement work done Council, and return the said to there- rolls who shall approve by either the said rolls as returned them Board, changes or they make such corrections and therein as advisable, thereupon adopt deem the same as the assessment rolls to be used for the collection of taxes for the year.” current It will provision be noted that this has Charter following language: “And, powers granted addition this them

Charter, they powers perform shall also have the same County same duties Commissioners’ Courts this State regard the assessment of for taxation and the equalization thereof, governed procedure and shall their be respect provided by acts this as now the laws of this relating equalization State County to the taxes State foregoing, said Commissioners’ Court. addition to sitting, compel power, said Board shall have the when production books, documents, stocks, of all other bonds and papers pertinent investigation, produced before to be investigation any person them in the persons, or of the taxable values of owning having corporations within firms * * * corporate City subject And to taxation. limits of *15 the from, there- said omitted Board add to the rolls previous years, and year either for for the current or lawfully City.” taxable within said appears not have

It that Court does Commissioners’ the.

30 Cook, property. authority to taxes on unrendered See assess Galveston, Co., Collector, Ry. Civ. H. & A. 5 Texas S. Tax 644, W., 544, App., it 24 where is said: S. only for taxa- is has not been rendered

“It where roll, placed unrendered can on the tion that it be assessed Article 4711.” this be done the assessor. must Texas, County, 54 Ry. & P. Co. v. Harrison In Texas question for taxation has is held that a of valuation when equaliza- regularly proper referred board of been once tion, But we find no is final. the valuation of that tribunal otherwise, authority, statutory or to sustain conten- either Equalization County vested with Board of tion that authority generally Apparently, au- assess taxes. to adjust lower the thority possesses to errors to raise or rendition, commissioners’ etc. Nor has the values stated court, apparently, any authority prop- on

to make assessments erty. purposes for taxation We conclude that Antonio, appellee was in San stock busses of the Board of the tax or the

Bexar assessor authority Equalization tax Fort Worth. had no to assess the findings fact, situs for In his the trial court found Antonio and taxation was motor busses San In paid Antonio. taxes had been for 1930 all W., Breckenridge (Civ. App.), 251 v. Pierce opinion by court, it was held that Chief Justice of this Conner restraining injunction proper remedy an the officers was attempting Breckenridge collection making therefor, or as levy collect sessing penalties certain taxes and for refusing payment of such taxes. Burnett, Texas, 3, Davis, held it was Tax Collector v. 77 enjoin necessary of taxes for one who the collection seeks wholly illegal applied for relief to that he had first to show equalization, To board of an sustained. Texas, Missouri, Ry. Co., Lively same effect is 545, &K. T. concerned, that, We believe courts are insofar the Texas pay the tax one who is assessed taxes have to does not have, bring they then do in suit to recover same as showing Federal Court. For Federal Court’s authorities Mfg. necessary illegal procedure prevent Indiana taxation see Sewing S., 452; Singer Koehne, Ct., Sup. Co. v. U. Benedict, S., 481, Ct., 942. Sup. Machine Co. v. U. *16 illegally recovery While the Texas courts allow the of taxes required paid, yet they injunction hold is a also illegal that an proper remedy prevent an or a assessment sale illegal Zimple Kinney under an v. assessment. See man, Texas, 554; County of Gal Galveston Gas Co. The veston, Texas, 287, showing citizen recover illegally paid. taxes demanded and Kerr v. Corsi See cana, Kerr, W., 694, S. of Corsicana v. affirmed Texas, 461, 794. holdings courts, We conclude that our under especially Supreme Court, proper was the an remedy illegally to restrain the collection assessed. of taxes judgment

The below is affirmed.” Republic Reciprocal Insurance Association Colgin Hospital & Clinic.

No. 6181. Decided November (65 W., Series, 286.) 2d Waco, Bryan Bryan, & Maxwell and all Stansell appellants.