Court Opinion

ID: 9833075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:26:05.025785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:59.462093
License: Public Domain

HODGES, J.
The city of Longview prosecuted this suit against the Citizens’ National Bank of Longview and its shareholders to collect city taxes due for the year 1923. The case was tried before the court and a judgment rendered for less than the sum sued for, and the city has appealed. The material facts are presented in the following findings of the trial judge:
“That on the 28th day of May, 1923, L. J. Everett, president of said bank, rendered the real estate of the bank for taxation to the tax assessor of the city of Longview at a valuation of $21,000. This rendition was and is satisfactory to the city of. Longview, and there is no dispute about said rendition in this suit. He also rendered the capital stock (real estate being excepted) of the bank at $22,000. L. J. Everett, as president of the bank, was notified to appear before the equalization board of the city on or about August 24,1923, to show cause why the valuation of the capital stock of the bank should not be raised to $43,000 for tax purposes. On account of ill health or by oversight he did not appear before the equalization board, and the valuation of the stock was increased to $43,000 by the equalization board.
“On January 30, 1924, before the time for the payment of 1923. taxes had expired, the said bank and its officers tendered to and offered to pay the taxes on real estate and stock as rendered, and the same was by the city authorities refused, for the reason that such tender did not pay the amount of taxes charged against the bank in full as shown by the tax roll. On the 18th day of September, 1924, the city instituted suit against the bank for the amount of taxes it claimed was due the city for the year 1923.
“The authorities of the city of .Longview reached the conclusion that the stock of the bank had been improperly assessed against the bank and that the capital stock of the bank should be assessed against the stockholders of *314the bank owning said stock on January 1, 1923. On December 9, 1925, the city reassessed the capital stock of the bank against the stockholders thereof on a valuation basis of a total of $43,500, or $43.50 per share. The board of equalization was assembled, and such board notified the stockholders to appear before it on December 22, 1925, to show cause why such valuation should not be permitted to stand; that the stockholders through Mr. L. J. Everett, their agent, appeared before the board and gave evidence in support of the valuation of $22,000 upon the stock, or a valuation of $22 per share. The board was controlled in fixing the valuation of the stock at $43,500 by using a bank statement, issued by said bank, reporting the condition of the bank at the'close of business on December 29, 1922, and published in the Long-view Daily Times Clarion. This statement showed the bank to have a capital stock of $100,000, net undivided profits of $7,502.32. L. J. Everett offered evidence to the effect that the assets of the bank in December, 1922, and on January 1,1923, were greatly impaired; that the comptroller of currency on December 13, 1922, ordered the officers of the bank to- charge off assets as worthless to the amount of $46,-. 456.58, which wiped out the surplus and undivided profits and impaired the capital stock to the extent of $39,017.17. The report of the condition of the bank as published did not show this charge-off, which charge-off was made on the books of the bank after the 1st day of January, 1923. L. J. Everett has collected for the stockholders of the bank out of said assets charged off as worthless about $3,000. On the 22d day of December, 1925, L. J. Everett, acting for the bank and its stockholders, again offered to pay to the city the taxes on the real estate and stock as originally rendered, but same was refused. He also tendered same to plaintiff in open court after this cause was called for trial and before trial thereof, but the same was refused.
“I find that, after the board of equalization assessed said bank stock, the stockholders did not appeal from said assessment, as required by the city charter of Longview.
“The city of Longview accepted all property for tax purposes and endeavored to equalize all property for tax purposes, including the property of banks and all other property in 1923, on a basis of 60 per cent, of the regular cash market valuation of all propertyJ The amount at which the shares of the bank were rendered, to wit. $22,000, was full value for said bank stock, and I find that said stock was not worth at its market value more than $22,000.
“The value upon said stock by the officers and agents of the city was in excess of its true market value, and I find that the assessed valuation of $43,500 for said stock was excessive to the amount of $21,000, and was arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, and unequal as compared to value of all other property in the city and assessed by the city, and especially, as to the value of property assessed to other banks in the city. I find that the authorities of the city were not making an intentional discrimination or intentionally assessing the property at an excessive, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, and unequal value, but fell into error by assessing the value of the stock of the bank upon the report of the condition of the bank as of December 29, 1922.”
In this appeal the judgment rendered is attacked upon two grounds: (1) Because the facts do not show an arbitrary discrimination against the appellees by the board of equalization ; and (2) because it conclusively appears that the appellees did not prosecute an appeal from the order of the board of equalization to the city commission, as is provided for in the city charter.
The city of Longview has what is called a “commission form”' of government. The charter contains a provision which requires judicial notice by the courts of this state. However, several provisions of the charter were introduced in evidence, among them the following:
“Section 55. (b) Duties of the Board. — Should this charter be adopted prior to the time the board of appraisement existing under the charter now in effect shall have completed its work for the year 1923, then, and in that event, said first board appointed under this charter shall meet immediately and carefully examine the tax assessments for the year 1923, and properly and equitably adjust and equalize the taxable values thereon, and continue until they, have adjusted 'and equalized the valuation on all property on said rolls, and after the completion of said work make due report of its action to the board of commissioners; and for each year thereafter the work of said board shall be completed on or prior to July 1st.
Section 55. (c) Appeal from Decision of Board. — In case of dissatisfaction with the decision of said board of appraisement by any taxpayer, an appeal from the decision of the said board of appraisement and equalization may be had to the board of commissioners of the city of Longview, but said appeal must be by a written petition, especially stating the things complained of, and shall be filed with the person performing the duties of city secretary before the expiration of thirty "days after said board has finally examined and passed upon the tax rolls of said city and made its final report to the board of commissioners, as herein provided. The decision of the board of commissioners in all cases of appeal from the decision of the board of appraisement and equalization shall be final and binding, and no appeal shall be-allowed from the decision of said board of commissioners.”
It is conceded that the appellees did not prosecute the appeal provided for above, and in their brief no reason is given for failing to do so. Assuming that the valuation placed upon the property by the board of equalization was discriminatory, the taxpayers cannot resort to the courts for relief until they have invoked the remedies provided by the charter. Neither the city charter nor the statutes provides for an appeal to the courts from the ruling of the board of equalization or the city commission. The courts take cqgnizance of such controversies only when the complaining paiffy has no other adequate remedy for the denial of a legal or constitutional right. It cannot be said, in this instance, that the appellees have no other adequate *315remedy till they have exhausted that provided by the city charter. The evidence shows that, after the rulings of the board of equalization fixing the valuation of the property, the tax rolls were submitted to and approved by the commissioners, without any objection or protest from the appellees. Their failure to present an objection or protest must be treated as an acquiescence in the action of the commissioners. Railway Co. v. Scanlan, 44 Tex. 651; Duck v. Peeler, 74 Tex. 268, 11 S. W. 111; Scollard v. City of Dallas, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 42 S. W. 640; Railway Co. v. Smith County, 54 Tex. 1. For that reason we think the trial court erred in setting aside the valuation fixed by the board of equalization and approved by the commission.
The judgment will therefore be reformed and affirmed. .