Court Opinion

ID: 9681759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:56:07.40057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:35.704879
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee complains of our factual interpretation of the record. This being a declaratory judgment case the law declared by us is necessarily referable to the facts used by us in formulating our statement of the law. As the facts vary so could the law.
The, trial court’s finding that the side wall coring tool is “rented” is, in our opinion, an erroneous legal conclusion drawn from undisputed facts.
Appellee also complains that the record shows that 'taxing authorities are not enforcing the tax statute involved here against all who come within its scope as construed by us in this opinion and claims unlawful discrimination under art. VIII, Sec. 2, of our Constitution which, in part, provides that “All occupation taxes shall be equal and uniform * *
This commandment of the Constitution appears to require not only that tax laws be equal and uniform in form but that they be executed in the same manner. Hoefling v. San Antonio, 85 Tex. 228, 20 S.W. 85, 16 L.R.A. 608; City of Houston v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App., Galveston, 178 S.W. 820 (writ ref.).
The question presented, however, is not within appellee’s pleadings and we express no opinion thereon.
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.