Case Name: STATE v. HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-06-19
Citations: 209 S.W. 820
Docket Number: No. 7603
Parties: STATE v. HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 209
Pages: 820–825

Head Matter:
STATE v. HOUSTON & T. C. RY. CO.
(No. 7603.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.
June 19, 1918.
On Motion for Re-hearing, Jan. 15, 1919.)
1. Appeal and Error <©=>773(4) — Briefs— Failure to File.
Where there was no fundamental error apparent of record, and no brief has been filed pointing out any error committed in the trial of the case, the judgment will be affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Navigable Waters <®=>8⅛, New, vol. 13 Key-No. Series — Navigation District — Tax-ation.
The “Harris County Ship Channel Navigation District of Harris County,” though having the same boundaries as Harris county, has no power of taxation, except such as is expressly conferred upon it by the law of its creation.
3. Navigable Waters <§=>8½, New, vol. 13 Key-No. Series — Navigation District — Taxation.
The law conferring upon a navigation district the power of taxation will be strictly construed.
4. Taxation <©=>25 — Nature of Power — Incident of Sovereignty.
The power of taxation is an incident of sovereignty, and all questions in regard to it address ' themselves to the discretion of the legislative department, whose conclusions, within the limits of the Constitution, are final.
5. Taxation <©=328 — Delegation of Power-Construction of Statute — Presumption.
The grant of taxing power to any county or district by the Legislature should be construed with strictness, the presumption being that the Legislature has granted in clear terms all it intended to grant.
6. Municipal Corporations <®=>95G(1) — Inherent Power to Tax.
Municipalities have no inherent power to tax.
7. Counties <©=3190(1) — 'Taxation—Authority of County Court.
The county court has no power or authority to levy a tax beyond that which may be conferred upon it by law.
8. Taxation <©=3284 — Railroad Property-Rolling Stock — Intangible Assets — Situs.
Intangible assets and rolling stock of railroad are of such a nature and character that-they have no actual situs in any particular county or district.
9. Taxation <©=>253 — Railroad Property-Place of Taxation — Power of Legislature.
Since railroad’s rolling stock and intangible assets have no actual situs in any particular county or district, it is within the lawful power of the Legislature to determine whether such property shall be embraced within the limits of a taxing district, and whether it shall be taxed for the purposes of such district.
10. Taxation <©=>253 — Railroads—Intangible Property.
A railroad corporation has no constitutional right to have its intangible property taxed only at its place of domicile.
11. Taxation <©=3253 — Personal Property-Situs— Valuation — Power of Legislature.
Unless restrained by some constitutional provision, the Legislature may fix the situs for taxation of all personal property.
12. Navigable Waters <©=>8%, New, vol. 13 Key-No. Series — Navigation District-Power of Taxation — Railroad Property.
In view of Const, art. 8, § 8, and Rev. St. 1911, art. 7525, Legislature may empower navigation district to tax rolling stock and intangible property of railroad, notwithstanding Const, art. 8, § 11, providing that property shall be assessed “in the county where situated,” such property having no actual situs.
13. Navigable Waters <©=>8½, New, vol. 13 Key-No. Series — Taxing Power of Navigation District — Railroads—Rolling Stock —Intangible Assets — “Within Said District.”
Navigation district having power to tax property “within said * * * district” has no power to tax rolling stock and intangible assets of railroad, such property not being within said district, in View of Const.' art. 8, §§ 8, 11, and Rev. St. 1911, art. 7525, being property of' such character that it has no actual situs, and not being physically within such district.
[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Within the District.]
14. Taxation <©=3284 — Situs—Railroads.
Acts 30th Leg. (First Called Sess.) e. 17, authorizing county tax officers to include the intangible values in the values fixed on the tangible property, did not have the effect of fixing a situs for rolling stock and intangible assets of railroad company.
15. Navigable Waters <§=>8½, New, vol. 18 Key-No. Series — Navigation District-Taxation — Statute — “Within Said District.”
Law creating navigation district, authorizing district to assess all property “within said navigation district, * * * whether real, personal, mixed, or otherwise,” authorized the taxation of only such property as is actually physically within the limits of the district.
16. Navigable Waters @=>8½, New, vol. 13 Key-No. Series — Navigation District>-Taxation — Intangible Property — Rollinq Stock — “Mixed or Otherwise.”
Navigation district’s power to “tax property within said navigation district, whether real, personal, mixed, or otherwise,” gives district no power to tax intangible assets and rolling stock of railroad upon theory that the term “mixed or otherwise” gives such authority, for such words relate back to, and are qualified by, the words “property within said navigation district.”
17. Statutes <®^219 — Construction.
The contemporaneous and particular construction of a statute by those whoso duty it is to carry it into effect, though not absolutely controlling, is entitled to great weight by the court.
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Henry J. Dannenbaum, Judge.
Suit by the State of Texas against Houston & Texas Central Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
John H. Crooker and H. H. Cooper, both of Houston, for appellant.
Baker, Botts, barker & Garwood and Mc-Means, Garrison & Pollard, all of Houston, for appellee.
43 Tex. Civ. App. 533.

Opinion:
LANE, J.
This suit was instituted by 'J. H. Crooker, district attorney, in behalf of the state of Texas, by authority and order of the commissioners' court of Harris county, against the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company, to recover certain taxes alleged to be due and payable to the county of Harris for the use and benefit of the Harris County Ship Channel Navigation District, which was duly organized by an act of the 31st Legislature of this state (Acts 31st Leg. e. 15), the boundaries of said district being the same as those oí Harris county.
The taxes sought to be collected by this suit are such as were assessed on the full value of the intangible, assets of appellee as were apportioned to Harris county by the state tax board, and the full value of its rolling stock as apportioned to said county by-the comptroller of the state.
Appellant, plaintiff below, contends that such taxes are assessable and collectable for tile use of said Harris county Ship Channel Navigation District, and appellee contends that there is no law authorizing the assessment and collection of such taxes for such purposes.
The cause was tried before the court without a jury upon the issues submitted. After hearing the evidence adduced and argument of counsel, the court rendered judgment for the defendant.
The cause is one of which the trial court had jurisdiction. The judgment rendered is one which the court could have properly rendered upon the record before us.
No brief has been filed in this court by appellant pointing out any error committed in the trial of the cause. There is no fundamental error apparent of record. Wherefore the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
<&=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<§=^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes