209 S.W. 820
Tex. App.
1918

*1 REPORTER 209 SOUTHWESTERN S20 part previous outriggers, despite of ing <©=3190(1) 7. Counties —'Taxation—Authori- ty finding of the cable. The that such of Court. proof power after care the state of the is made no or may that which be confer- record, ful examination it is deem of the but upon byit red law. unnecessary testimony catalogue the ed here. Property- 8. Taxation <©=3284—Railroad If, then, judgment Rolling can Intangible of affirmance — — Stock Assets overloading properly be rested Situs. place outriggers, Intangible as the the failure to rolling assets and of rail- already fact, findings, road are of such a and conclusions stated nature and that- character particular any merely permit, have no actual require, thought situs it but county or district. purpose useful a dis- no be served would many pre- questions cussion of the Property- 9. Taxation <©=>253—Railroad negli- relative acts of Legisla- sented gence. to the other of Place Taxation —Power of ture. overruled, assignments All Since railroad’s particular any is affirmed. have no actual situs in power it within the lawful such determine whether taxing district, of a be tax- and whether it shall purposes ed such district. RY. STATE CO. v. HOUSTON T. C. (No. 7603.) Railroads—Intangi- 10. Taxation <©=>253 — Property. ble Appeals (Court of of Texas. Galveston. Civil corporation A railroad has no constitutional June On for Re- 1918. Motion have its 1919.) hearing, Jan. place at its of domicile. Appeal <©=>773(4) 1. and Error —Briefs— Property- 11. Taxation <©=3253—Personal Failure File. Legisla- — Valuation Situs— Power ap- Where there error was no fundamental ture. parent pointing record, brief has no Unless restrained some constitutional in the trial error committed provision, taxation of all fix situs for case, will be affirmed. personal property. Rehearing. On Motion for Navigable New, <©=>8%, 12. vol. Waters — <®=>8 , Key-No. Navigation Series Navigable New, District- 2. vol. 13 Waters Property. Key-No. Navigation Power Taxation —Railroad Series — District —1Tax- Const, view art. St. and Rev. ation. 7525, Legislature 1911, gation may empower art. navi- Naviga- The “Harris intangi- district to tax stock and though having County,” tion District of Harris Const, railroad, notwithstanding ble art. assessed property county, has no the same boundaries as Harris 11, providing shall be power expressly taxation, except situated,” “in the where law its creation. conferred having no actual situs. Navigable New, <§=>8½, 3. vol. 13 Waters Key-No. Navigation Navigable New, <©=>8½, District —Tax- Series — Waters vol. Key-No. Taxing Naviga- ation. Series — Power of Railroads—Rolling conferring District — Stock The law —Intangible power Assets —“Within Said Dis- trict will be con- trict.” strued. power having to tax 4. Taxation Power —In- <©=>25—Nature * * * property “within said district” has intangible Sovereignty. cident power to tax no sets of as- taxation is incident of sov- railroad, with- ereignty, questions regard and all ad- to it §§ ' View of art. Const.' legis- themselves to the discretion dress 8, 11, being prop- department, conclusions, lative the limits of the within erty of' such character that actual Constitution, are final. situs, being physically and not within such dis- trict. Delegation Taxation Power- <©=328— Presumption. definitions, [Ed. Note.—For other see Words Construction of Statute — Phrases, Series, First and any county Within Second District.] district with construed presumption being strictness, 14. Taxation <©=3284 —Situs—Railroads. granted Legislature has in clear terms Leg. (First Sess.) Acts e. Called intended authorizing county tax officers to include Municipal Corporations <®=>95G(1) values in the fixed —In- values Power herent Tax. tangible property, did not have the effect fix- Municipalities ing rolling company. have no inherent situs as- sets of railroad tax. topic Key-Numbered Digests other cases see same <&=For KEY-NUMBERin all and Indexes *2 , Tes.) & T. C. RY. CO. STATE v. <§=>8½, New, Navigable ment and collection of taxes for such such vol. Waters — Navigation Key-No. purposes. Series District- — — Dis- “Within Said Taxation Statute The cause was tried court with- before the trict.” jury upon out submitted. After issues navigation creating authoriz- Law hearing argument the evidence adduced and ing “within district assess to judgment counsel, the court rendered * * * real, per- navigation the defendant. otherwise,” sonal, mixed, authorized The cause is one of trial court which the actually taxation physically jurisdiction. judgment had rendered is the district. the limits of within properly one which the court could have Navigable @=>8½, New, vol. Waters upon rendered the record before us. Navigation Key-No. District>-Tax- Series — [1] No has filed in this court brief Rollinq Property — Intangible — ation by appellant pointing com error or Otherwise.” Stock —“Mixed There is the trial the cause. mitted prop- Navigation power to “tax district’s apparent no error of record. fundamental erty navigation district, whether within said judgment of the court is trial Wherefore the gives real, personal, mixed, trict rolling term dis- or otherwise,” no affirmed. to theory that stock of Affirmed. authority, gives “mixed otherwise” to, qualified and are for such by, relate back words Rehearing. On Motion for navigation “property the words was submitted to this This cause district.” appel- appellee, and brief of the record 17. Statutes <®^219 —Construction. Upon having no brief. considera- lant filed particular con- affirmed submitted we cause thus duty it is struction of a statute those whoso court, shown of the trial carry effect, though absolutely con- into original opinion. great weight by trolling, is court. entitled opinion filed, and in has been Since our time, appellant Appeal Court, motion for filed its Harris Coun- from District due motion, together ty; Henry Dannenbaum, Judge. rehearing, and, with its J. that, Appellant asks now brief. against Suit State of Texas question importance because of volved, Judg- Railway Company. & Texas Central rehearing grant we plaintiff defendant, appeals. ment for hearing its brief. consider that we objection urges Appellee motion. Cooper, H. H. H. both John Crooker and motion, We therefore Houston, appellant. dispose proceed consider and now Baker, Botts, Mc- Garwood and propositions presented assignment barker Houston, Means, Pollard, all of Garrison & appellant’s brief. appellee. only assignment By it is in- first sisted that— LANE, J. This suit instituted 'J. rendering “The court erred in Crooker, attorney, H. behalf defendant, undisputed tile because the evidence by authority Texas, and order sought recovered shows were the taxes of Harris of the commissioners’ court duly against levied and assessed the roll- Rail- Central the Houston & Texas ing de- stock and way Company, al- certain taxes to recover and county, Texas, in Harris in manner fendant provided payable county leged to be due by* law.” Harris Harris and benefit District, Navigation only question Ship agreed Channel de- It is organized by duly an act of the not “Harris cision is whether or (Acts 31st this state 31st District of Har- Channel 15), County” e. the boundaries of has the tax the value said district ris intangible property county. the same as oí Harris appellee board and be collected fixed the state tax apportioned suit are such as were the full tax assessor assessed on and certified intangible, pur- appellee value assets of of Harris apportioned poses. were board, appel- presented propositions full state tax of its value first, apportioned substance, assignment are, stock as to said lant’s by-the comptroller prop- state. below, Appellant, plaintiff erty subject contends of a railroad payment in the same of taxes such taxes are assessable and collectable for property; second, county Ship tile use Channel other manner as property Navigation District, appellee situated in 'this cause was contends involved County Ship authorizing of the Harris there is no law the assess- Digests and Indexes topic Key-Numbered cases <§=^>For see same KEY-NUMBER in 209 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER court said: districts have no inherent conferred portioning being clear terms must determine ty Legislature, Supreme construed with themselves to the discretion of the tive the limits of the that all sions and which is ties there cited. Brown v. 225; adopt. issues found sive, fact Carlile Ct. power ly law must be City as such tion, means follows that it gation gation “Harris has the of fore extent as the commissioners’ court company tion district for the use of said trict, in In [6] Cooley [5] [4] “It In [2, ordering conferred support delinquent App. purposes, department, Baker “Counties 3] intangible Brown the further discussion “In* “It and condensed brief of of Harris district for its use and benefit. n District of Harris v. Galveston, appellant WJhile County case of Baker v. Panola Court said: in questions in authority on the same manner cannot be strongly supported by upon it taxation, except situated Navigation District, addition is axiomatic that the construction of our own Eldridge, it. 989; Graham, its boundaries are the and maintain such an incident of all it intended to the manner v. Taxation, the rule is that municipal determining it is authorizing taxes levied strictly prescribed by law, Fort Worth v. Panola and other any county Houston strictness, Graham, Constitution, we 76 of other questions it true is to enforce seriously the discussion of these 58 Tex. 255. 1 White & W. law.” Tex. any power very able, shall, is regard 1st Ed. property; construed. Wood County, necessity that the taxable is conclusions, Ship municipalities such as is 58 126, payment or district immaterial. The matter, copy sovereignty, with and to the same County” tax, contended that Tex. place, Davis, Channel Navi of a to it address er it shall any grant appellee, are final. state, 13 presumption to tax.” 30 Tex. tife authori- County, power or authori the conten- <and granted of its crea some omis- comprehenr district. *3 third, S. W. power defendant said navi collection Civ. Cas. it same is there- of taxes express railroad legisla 57 Tex. taxable has no naviga- rolling county policy by 227; the ation and the taxes ap 87; of lar as adhered to v. ty, 11) p. 99 W. ,tion, v. situated.’ The 38 .construed.” County, Mo. Langdon 93 Md. 880; 51 Tex. Civ. of error denied Higgins St. J. 80 S. W. tle v. Co. v. School power is not of nature and in manner of no inherent to be taxed and the amount payers, Legislature defining privileges, including created indicated alone it case, tions, collected, ipalities, an W. Civ. Cas. Ct. only through application, according to tax, plainly the case of Carlile v. levy “The Constitution [8, “Second. As taxing district, The rule above stated “First. Wright, “Therefore, by Another clear “It L. Ed. that all N. construe inherent 381; Layman for whose benefit the 378; Ry. B. C. & A. R. Co. v. Wicomico directioii of 9] “The made no taxes unless the acquire we for the can correct” City Dallas, viz.: is the act State, v. 121 Oil & Fuel v. School an C. start state, with strictness.' 874; Bowman, 205; Morgan is or by 151 U. S. a A 48 power unmistakably vote Ga. B. power, unquestioned rule, the authorities cited. purposes 25 Co. v. a municipality City Cooley in the consideration of with two Atl. of creation must be R. R. Co. v. Ind. App. actual situs in v. Tel. of its resident statement of the rule is voluntary commissioners’ court can strictness, delegation it. and whether it shall be paid Dist., Supreme shall be assessed for tax- 853; Alamance, of Galveston v. Co., courts of this District of Harris Coun- 178 Mo. levy taxes; 35 Tex. Civ. 49 S. E. § of said district.” Ket on Taxation to all the County involved 989: Eldridge, 113 S. W. 585 ‘in the -rights, powers, is within the lawful Court held that the State ex rel. K. 116 W. Co., established has been County 116 tax is sovereign 87 Am. Dec. conferred.” state has erred determine wheth 14 one Cooley does including things taxation. of an act of Court); taxing S. 123 Ky. grant given thereof, Severance, Sup. 84 N. C. Houston (article 8, of its munic- the limits of any particu of universal it can do to do so be authorities, Iowa, 591, v. Walton & 1 White Company. uniformly 77 App. on (1st power 617; Ry. state, power Ct. Ry. State v. proposi- district, Guffey, possess where' S. W. it has Taxa- (writ Ed.) 358; 504; Ship 632, tax- Go. C., 55 be as in it Tex.) & T. BY. CO. C. STATE v. 823 166 U. S. violate ment and intangible mining These ern enter line, 58 14 poration for taxation. petent Morgan United State at its tional situs and prohibited what ized that “county.” The provides 123 K. 55 Mo. companies, have fixed has volved character form, tain, visions apportioning tion stitution the apportionment. The St. and the sets.” ‘going [10] [11] “These Sup. have its proportion to distance C., actual situs “counties” Railway 102 Tex. place Constitution Iowa, 62 49 ‘county.’ as to of Galveston 113 adhering to, these no actual into purposes, v. place provision, As properties St. Unless restrained States The situs in a value and do S. are based Ct. method of Civ. concern.’ Ry. Co., apportionment municipal far 185, S. W. has not taxation of for taxation of so, tax law how J. & constitutional fixed elsewhere. from ‘what E. and become apportionment. Article properties of the the of domicile. provision. proper applied intangible justify as we value, As to counties, Co. v. in 17 7525) 776; Layman of special Aside they C. i. 38 99 situs, Legislature fixing elsewhere, as in the “ascertaining v. Sup. the legislative of such both ” apportionment 60 railway apportioning the e., only by B. R. Co. S. W. L. W.N. Walton the constitutional corporation follows construction of City rolling stock of but Guffey, Express should ascertaining Wright, the authorities are uni- S. Ed. method Ct. from the limitation and situs no fixed “intangible but property W. its method Ry. R. is of Columbus W. 852. 604, been able to ascer- statute which fixes railway It is to assessment part personal property are of a kind companies, fundamental expressly run v. Iowa County, for taxation and Tyler is not Co. v. provision to fix Co. v. 151 some 41 Ed. the ‘state’ a railroad for its assess statutory taxed, Lively same did entirely part of the entire v. State provisions of Court situs. be embraced to be through the Id., question L. taxed the case of U. taxing Severance, v. its companies As road runs Shannon, tax” contrary, its that has *4 Auditor, constitu Tel. the Con- S. not 121 value of 94 railway 8, § 8. Cocker, and for author S. restric- ex rel. fix the South among deter value. They (Rev. situs Called Session com c. Tex. been only idea cor pro- Ga. not the act as nicipal purposes, determined in gation ible assets of of railroad 80 W. ture has Harris trict, tle act levied enactment of of trict,” tax amendment, situs within but the act of tax officers to include portion thereof. that it is effect tangible assets from the rated that vision, for plain' import ever, and apportioning ing power, use all excluding etc., question ary tion, strued sessed tion or “must taxed, in disclose said: [12] It is “Laws [13] [14] As to [15] The law which whole. the values appellee be Tyler Cocker, 146), S. otherwise.” W. 729. on same statutes, 1st of Railway Lyons, provided a terms they and whether it shall be maintained that of collected. is unlawful. within the The District Harris It its both municipality along rolling stock, our courts that fixing affecting inwas actually physically that not must be conceded required order should any year the statute of our creation, intangible is clear, therefore, recognize, companies. “all which The court in this case fixed on the the the line the Harris being any portion not Dallas, Norris v. a situs for the record to be This means method of policy that it property meaning Constitution values. act take.cognizance railway company the property lawmaking power.’ the taxation are to be not be extended 58 Tex. Civ. for which a expressly granted by chapter District its political where language the shall county. say authorized gives 30th passed real, in this case the 1905 road. tax Waco, 57, Tex. constantly Legislature inaugu tangible properties, tangible properties; powers within of government, such assets or It could Va. separating be levied be taxed for doing itr Legislature “within of the district personal, that the Constitution method questions, proposed (Acts is used. thereto.” Channel Navi under its actual The Prior to generally taxing App. 605, act sought 42 S. E. 932. as of Janu- Acts may levy property the the have 29th not, cities and in actual is Constitu- said dis have no potent does not had the Legisla Atlantic, the fact adopted and as ” situs as not the intang naviga the or tax sought values mixed, to be is Eirst how Ket held City mu pro- con the the in an / 209 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER included local rated tricts actment, there is state given property, purposes, assessor.” provision out poses passed district words ments passed, assets lature ed to way companies intangible said ties” words of the not taxes ated strict and as certified been, tax the benefit expressed ble where than cannot be or their which “within said extend gation district,” power within tax that which is.” towns “All There There was The subject in several otherwise”; it intended to the word assets as board, authorize district. they tax taxes intangible in the by, cities, school and meaning follows: act was actually physically intangible to personal property their presumption Constitution on and two was now purposes. on board, as stated shall be tax assessor of to relate to taxation predicated upon limit taxation for must in clear and unmistakable the tax assets and and of said became by in the terms on property sought at which voluntary limits as in which tax introduced for the describe, that of lawno navigation district.” state. “all,” particulars, one of the amend- fixed and emergency shall be which bill the which passed, section,” to the the value of assets. bill introduced back be, subject intangible assets, in the years part comptroller, rolls the value bill, assessment The payment districts, effect clearly expressed and in this shall law after the road section to, assets “state,” require act of n 0 determined every to assessing county, as fixed conferring in the certified in section “all of the must be' to taxation after locating the This bill was words stricken which of, and are- wit, last laws of Texas clause, reason for school district assets assets If it “within the terms well as assets any the of railroad rule of ‘lying intangible apportioned the residents of state of taxes the 31st section, \yhich and the “coun- Thirty-Second stock of it would have runs, being amend- had of same included in the same “Mr. W. H. by the state district cre- law the tax. by striking qualified county, for was by the tax companies “property” for school 57, sought intangible providing road for school following ject all construc intended incorpo- act intangi- and do right to its en- “mixed finally Legis- assets “that terms being’ com- navi to pur- rail- else pay intangible assets. was for re- individual, tangible property state and tax sessor assets assessor roll the state each and after be carried on. beginning pay posed upon them, respectively, by law, annually, to the this gible counties in which this business is or shall here- panies, which are and authorities cited hereinbefore. whether the tions 28, 1907, rendered the W. 348; lature, pendent ported adversely by the committee of the of section Called Session 30th House, in which it was introduced. district, upon of local school taxes for a common school § tions, corporations,” reason for its Legislature of Texas never became a State. panies,” towns, “From the above “Section 16 “Section 16 of “Section of8 “Dear made for the The word There was provisions, toria, Texas: school 1043; City Davenport board a tax to the state for the department to the Attorney General, making should be property, year c. Senate, assets act are coming *5 Legislature, is shown favorably of apportioned ad valorem taxes on corporations, firms, 15, 23; Const, this state to shall and school school Sir: Xour necessity each with shall etc., “by incorporated thereafter, now, company, corporation, districts, provisions intangible Stoner, Lyons, extend and “intangible” where it was introduced following, opinion: comptroller and local taxes thereon to the assets of certain the first passage “tangible.” said act report assessment of or which districts, for attention. districts, art. by reported law, ad valorem taxes in this state finally independent Baker v act First Called it will be to for such a law.” This bill subject letter of the 24th the 'record that on Assessor Victoria and it act 101 Va. assets of certain associa- on their his the amount of thereof shall authorize Leg. etc.. assets office of otherwise. provisions § “that day provides provides pro passed certify has been referred to 8; bill taxes and road and individuals sub- to taxation . in the act of the tangible Druesedom, seen that year 1906, This bill See certified c. rate Const, shall, “May 28, belonging for the taxation intangible hereafter public a committee of introduced, assessed under January, 1900, Session, to the tax as- inquiry that all or association 42 S. E. Ry., by that the com- Secretary and that the Thirty-Third of the intan- corporations Acts First cities and properties, the is Acts 31st intangible provision art. collection that as a accounts districts, all such inst., addition corpora- his now no be, Legis assets to as to Iowa, c. inde- copy May Vic- tax im- in- but re- Tex.) y. T.& C. RT. CO. STATE sions .against countypurposes. state and (cid:127)General question here is there such board are that such mistake the sion recent “Hon. O. H. opinion school districts are tionment of nor for school district school district No. 13 of this track tangible from ment. and the subdivisions your county to local school district taxes. of the law *6 for sor now has failed school tax for either the manner years W. 69.1 shown State road within the it would be the Short Line Railroad has 1 43 “[Signed] “Dear Sir: We have “Yours “I have to “ “ “Replying “Yours “Replying And The construction of the a railroad ‘There is Texas: T county tax “[Signed] anywhere property for v. St. Louis Southwestern 1912^-13 desire tax?’ date, to assess this board to so, above, Is the railroad section 16 for this rendered the any provision for the truly, very truly, Civ. tangible property and 20 provisions the tax applicable in which of counties. district; proper, on Eodes, advise, therefore, that authority J. assessor in applies with adhere, your presented. know if the tax your independent list duty “Assistant April 1, 1914, department duty school school district cents and assess assessor of not entitled first year. but not for second of the you of articles 7565 and act company reports Stephens, to local school is it to make the assess- acted only, only. reports following opinion: article your district taxes. are not Luther for to assess these taxes question, say: assets of 3i/io assess Attorney facts stated assessor question, I school They are separate done equal reports 1912. Attorney Attorney, Emory, There is no communication of collector or asses- “April 1, 1914. the taxes tax in this Comptroller.” without interference Niehels, taxes levied miles of assessment mentioned, oversight will force the railroad these independent the district the district ments and any appor- General.” of 50 cents The state liable Attorney state property, See, taxes made say common General by you, to the is the provi- Texas provi- years, apart made their also, rail act, nor say he it is to lowed lutely controlling struction construction of years by courts must construction then such been construed ton v. practical policy favor involved the practice necessarily give ens into have both es of fees of clerks for certain services. construction should out counts actment Cocker, been followed except by as announced ities cited fendant. constrain counties. opinion by The bills The last We Slaughter, must Tolleson evidence opinions Oil trial court. err in upon.” In the case of Auditor requires executive branch v. Cain deem court. need most construe discussing the carry Co., great execute; constructions * an authoritative construction administration, government. us1 officers to These and for the use of construed clearly * * contemporaneous statutes rendering judgment often not legislative 194 S. put cogent construction of a following 195 S. the taxation it into weight which, (Ky.) Rogan, unnecessary hold Court construction cited statute under suc'h give constructions, re solving is entitled years, not be dwelt reasons. have been introduced discussion, sustain Attorney by, particular way this state 61 S. W. whom is Valhoff case, ejearly enforce authorities cited effect, 96 Tex. laws contemporaneous con- cases: 422; officers is so and in of made and upon. Sound its construction railway companies, departed Texas, the trial Attorney approved executive lawmaking court said: those whose circumstances all mere doubts though assets A government must (D. Yoakum them, said: General, committed well State 124 W. of Public long-continued long-continued since great view prolong C.) in the case laws which affirmed. show understood particular fixing the state and uniformly law, and court did necessity, Tyler General branch the de- of, It had author- duty depart- weight offered herein, power, Hous- public many with- abso their duty Fed. rip- Ac it.” fol- en-