Court Opinion

ID: 9828138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:08:34.214032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:43.745212
License: Public Domain

HARPER, C. J.
This suit was filed in the district court of Martin county by appellant, as plaintiff, against A. B. Miller, tax collect- or of Martin county, Tex., and T. S. Crowder, W. Y. Houston, J. A. Harris, J. H. O’Brien, A. G. Odom, J. H. Kelley, and R. H. Kelley, trustees of Stanton independent school district, appellees, to restrain the collection of taxes which the said Miller was attempting to collect from appellant for said independent school district for the year 1913. Said petition was filed April 7, 1914, and on the same day the district judge in chambers granted a temporary restraining order, restraining the said Miller and the trustees of said independent school district from collecting said tax. The case was called for. trial at the spring term of the district court of Martin county, and, upon the trial of said case, judgment was rendered for defendants, and the temporary restraining order was dissolved. From which judgment the -plaintiff has appealed.
*839The trial court filed the following findings of fact, and the same are not challenged:
“The Stanton independent school district is a legally incorporated school district, and has a right to levy and collect taxes for the support of the public schools of the district and for the payment of interest and sinking fund on bond issues; and the defendants, except the defendant A. B. Miller, who was the tax collector of Martin county, are the trustees of said Stanton independent school district. * * * Said Henson (the assessor) assessed all of the property in the said Stanton independent school district for said district at the same time that he assessed the same property for the state and county, but, in making said assessments for the school district did not take separate renditions or separate sheets for the school district. The said assessor-, Henson, submitted his assessments or renditions to the commissioners’ court of Martin county sitting as a board of equalization, and said commissioners’ court equalized the renditions and assessments made by the said Henson. The commissioners’ court of Martin county, sitting as a board of equalization, notified the plaintiff, Vance, of the change in the valuation of the property assessed against him, and the said plaintiff appeared before said commissioners’ court, sitting as a board of equalization at the time notified to do so, and the board of equalization heard him on the proposed change in the valuation. Afterwards the said Henson made, from his rendition or assessment sheets, tax rolls for Martin county, and from the same sheets or renditions made tax rolls for the Stanton independent school district. No board of equalization for the Stanton independent school district was appointed by the board of trustees, but said board of trustees accepted the equalization made by the equalization board of Martin county.”
Preliminary to passing upon the merits of this appeal, appellee urges his cross-assignment of error that the independent school district itself is a necessary party defendant.
[1] It will be noted from the statement above that the suit was brought against the sheriff and tax collector and the trustees; also the record discloses that the Stanton independent school district is a municipal corporation organized as such only. Under article 2853, Revised Civil Statutes 1911, it is “vested with all the powers, rights and duties * * * that are conferred by the laws of this state” upon incorporated cities and towns. Article 1835, Rev. Civ. Stat. 1911, provides that “all suits brought by or against * * * incorporated cities, towns or villages shall be by or against it in its corporate name.” It is therefore necessary and indispensable that the district be sued in its corporate name, in order to have any binding decree against it. Without a decree against the corporation there would be nothing to prevent any future officer from proceeding to collect the taxes complained of under the present records, which must be held so defective as not to authorize the tax collector to collect the taxes assessed.
[2] In view of another trial, it may be well to add: In Chambers v. Cook, 132 S. W. 865, it was held that the law requires the appointment of a board of equalization by the trustees to equalize the value of the property assessed, that the taxes may be equal and uniform in the district, also requires a separate tax roll; and that the county commissioners had passed upon the rolls as a board of equalization does not meet the requirements of the law, and this holding we approve and adopt. Article 2853, Revised Civil Statutes 1911, clearly charges all independent school districts, organized as this one, with all the duties of city councils in respect to taxation; and article 945, Revised Civil Statutes 1911, provides that cities shall have a board of equalization, and, without a board of equalization to pass upon and approve the assessor’s rolls, they cannot be looked to in any way to fix liability on the taxpayer or his property. Chisholm v. Adams, 71 Tex. 678, 10 S. W. 336.
Because of failure to make necessary parties, the cause is reversed and remanded.