Court Opinion

ID: 9833780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:01:13.684239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.668618
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we said:
“The board of equalization raised this valuation to $11,000 per mile and issued notice of hearing. At this hearing the $11,000 valuation was left undisturbed.”
This statement is corrected so as to read:
“The board of equalization raised this valuation to $11,500 per mile and issued notice of •hearing. At this hearing the valuation was finally placed at $11,000 per mile.”
Appellee contends that the pleadings are not sufficient to raise the issue upon which our opinion was rested, in that there was no pleading by appellant to the effect that discrimination arose by reason of the basis of value in connection with appellant’s intangibles and rolling stock. The contention in this regard is that the only attack on the assessment was that the commissioners’ court had used a different basis in assessing appellant’s property from that used in assessing other property in the county. There are five counts in appellant’s answer, the first of which we think is broad enough to cover any character of discrimination. The language used is:
“That the plaintiff in this case is insisting and demanding that it (appellant) pay in proportion more than is charged or demanded of others owning similar property in the same territory, or section of Milam county.”
There was no exception directed to this allegation, in the absence of which we think it should be regarded as sufficient.
It was urged in the argument on the motion for rehearing that the case was not fully developed from the viewpoint of appel-lee, and further that the amount of taxes tendered and paid was less than the total tax due after deducting the difference between 40 and 50 per cent, of the intangibles and between 40 and 100 per cent, of the rolling stock. We are unable to tell from the record whether this latter contention is correct.
In view of these two contentions in the argument, we have concluded that the case should be remanded instead of finally, disposed of in this court. Our former judgment is therefore set aside, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded generally to that court for a new trial.
Motion granted.
Judgment reversed and remanded.