Opinion

Vance v. Miller

  • 170 S.W. 838
  • 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 992
Court
Court of Appeals of Texas
Filed
Oct 29, 1914
Status
Published
On the bench
Harper
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.2%

The opinion

On Rehearing.

[3] Appellees, in their motion for rehearing, insist that the opinion rendered in this case is in conflict with Railway Co. v. Blum Independent School District, 143 S. W. 353 , Underwood v. Childress, Ind. School District, 149 S. W. 773 , and Cooper v. Avery, 168 S. W. 412 . Our opinion in no wise conflicts with these cases. The first case cited was controlled by the second proviso in section 57 of chapter 124, Acts of 29th Leg. This proviso is not now in force, having been repealed by the Acts of the 31st Leg. e. 12, as pointed out in the last two cases mentioned. As stated in said opinions, the statute mentioned, as amended, applies only to common school districts. As stated in the original opinion, incorporated towns, organized into independent school districts, are required to have a board of equalization, and the statute charges independent school districts, organized as such only, with the same duty. The fact that the trustees of the latter have elected to have the county assessor and collector assess and collect the taxes does not relieve them of the duty to have a board of equalization.

If the statute (section 165, c. 124, Acts 29th Legislature), being the law of the present case, had read, “When the assessor and collector of the county, assess and collect, the property shall be assessed at the same valuation as fixed for county and state purposes,” by implication, it would have dispensed with a board of equalization, but it reads that the property shall not be assessed at a greater valuation than that assessed for county and state purposes. So, under this provision, the assessed valuation of the property of the district might be the same or less than that fixed for county and state purposes.

There being no implication that such districts may legally collect taxes without a board of equalization, and no express or implied authority for the county board of equalization to pass upon valuations, and the statute quoted in the original opinion clearly re- *840 duiring such districts to have a board of equalization, an attempt to collect taxes without complying therewith is without authority and may be enjoined.

Therefore the motion is overruled.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.