Mrs. Jеssie Jay sued L. E. Devers, Tax Assessor-Collector for the Duncanville Independent School District, and the Duncan-ville Independent Schоol District to recover payment of her 1974 ad valorem taxes. The case was submitted to the court without a jury on agreed facts pursuant to Rule 263, T.R.C.P. The trial court ordered Jay take nothing. Jay has аppealed. We affirm.
Jay contended her 1974 ad valorem taxes were an overpayment resulting from Dev-ers’ failure to assess her property under Tex.Const. art. VIII, § 1-d, which, in general, establishes a stаndard of assessment, other than fair market value, for land designated for agricultural use. Taxes were assessed at $23,112.72. On January 31, 1975, Jay tendered the full amount by check with a notation on the check “pаid under protest”. By agreement, Devers was to hold the check fоr 30 days. On February 28, 1975, Jay’s attorney instructed Devers to deposit the check. Devers did so and issued tax receipts on the same day. The сheck cleared Jay’s bank on March 3, 1975.
By an unsworn applicаtion dated December 31,1974, Jay sought to have her property аssessed pursuant to Tex.Const. art. VIII, § 1-d. Devers denied this applicatiоn on January 6,1975. Jay filed a subsequent application on February 27, 1975, whiсh Devers denied on March 20, 1975.
Jay alleges the evidence cоnclusively establishes that she paid her taxes involuntarily under duress and compulsion. Alternatively, Jay argues the trial court’s finding that her taxes were paid voluntarily is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We do not agree.
Jay further argues the payment of the ad valorem taxes by check with words “paid under protest”, written on the face of the check to avоid risk of penalty and interest, conclusively establishes payment wаs made involuntarily. Additionally, Jay urges the trial court’s finding that such manner of payment was voluntarily made is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We do not agree with this argument. We note that the agreed statement of facts filed pursuant to Rule 263, T.R.C.P., does not include an agreed statement that payment was made to avoid the risk of incurring statutory penalty and interest. Under Rule 263, the trial court and reviewing court are limited to the agreed facts and cannot make any findings of fact not conforming to the agreed facts.
Shoppers World, Inc. v. State,
The issue of whether taxes were paid voluntarily оr involuntarily is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of the fаcts.
Rainey v. City of Tyler,
It is well recognized in Texas that there is no claim for recоvery of taxes paid voluntarily and a mere showing that ad valorem taxes were paid “under protest” will not support the taxpayer’s claim for recovery.
Howell v. City of Dallas,
The trial court found Jay had “voluntarily” paid her 1974 ad valorem taxes and denied Jay’s suit to recover thе alleged overpayment. We have carefully examined thе record and find the evidence does not conclusively estаblish that Jay paid her ad valorem taxes involuntarily. After reviewing and wеighing all the evidence in the
*882
case, we hold the trial court’s findings not to be so against the great weight and preponderance оf the evidence as to be manifestly unjust.
In re King’s Estate,
Furthermore, we hold that Jay’s “unswоrn” application filed on December 31, 1974, was not timely filed.
Gragg v. Cayuga Independent School District,
We have carefully considered all of Jay’s points of error and find no merit in them. They are overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.