Court Opinion

ID: 9829858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:41:19.008419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:07.882155
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant complains that the trial court ■erred in sustaining an objection to portions of the testimony of B. H. Williams, the state reclamation engineer. It is argued that, had this testimony been admitted, it would have ‘shown that appellant suffered an injury from the change made in the original plan of reclamation. An examination of the bill of exception upon which that assignment is based shows that the following question was asked the reclamation engineer:
“Everything being equal with reference to the physical characteristics of the land, would it cost any more to build a levee 67,000 feet long than it would one 5⅜000 feet long?”
An objection was sustained to that question upon the ground that the answer would be immaterial. The bill fails to show what the answer to the question would have been, and for that reason-the ruling cannot be considered.
The record contains no bill of exception showing any objection made to the introduction of the delinquent tax list, nor is there any record of any objection made to the introduction of the report of the commissioners of appraisement showing the assessment of the benefits to be different tracts of land in the district.
The contention is renewed in the motion for rehearing that the additional tax levied to provide an interest and sinking fund for the payment of the second bond issue is invalid because there had been no reappraisement of benefits before that tax was levied. The record shows that the original bond issue of $220,000 was based upon the first estimate made by the engineer of the cost of constructing the improvements contemplated in the formation of the district. That amount proved to be insufficient. A second bond issue of $70,000 was later applied for by the property owners. In the petition for the second bond issue it is stated:
“That there is not sufficient funds on hand to make the improvements, above set out, and finish the construction of a levee system now being built in said district.
“That there is a pressing necessity for the further issuance of'bonds by said Dallas county levee improvement district No. 6, in that the slews, creeks, and many branches running into said district from the foothills occasion the demand for extensive ditching, digging of canals and laterals for the protection of the lands within said district, and the completion of the system of levees also designed.
“That there is not sufficient funds on hand to complete the plan of reclamation and the system of levees as they are now designed, and that the additional improvements, as above set out, and the completion of the present system of levees, can be completed with the funds accruing from the proposed additional bonds.”
*644The petition was presented to the commissioners’ court on January 20, 1921, and February 10 following was designated as the time for hearing objections from the property owners in the district. After legal notice had been given, the court met and entered an order for the election. In that order appears the following recital:
“It further appearing to the court that the works and improvements set out in the original plan of reclamation are found to be insufficient to reclaim all of the land and other property within the district, and that the amount of additional bonds to be issued does not exceed the 'estimated cost of construction,” etc.
In the election that followed, all of the votes east were in favor of the bond issue, according to the recital contained in the order of the commissioners’ court. It thus appears that all the provisions of the statute essential to the creation of additional indebtedness had been complied with. If those bonds are valid1 outstanding obligations — and in this collateral proceeding we must treat them as such— the district had a right to levy and collect a tax suffiicient for their payment. The only question before us is, Was the appellant’s land subject to that tax? Under both the Constitution and the statute the district was a municipal corporation, endowed with certain governmental powers, and created for the purpose of performing certain governmental services, aside from increasing the productivity of the lands situated in the district. Necessarily the rate of taxation for district purposes must be equal and uniform. In appraising the benefits for the purpose of fixing the basis of taxation, the system of improvements relied on to produce the benefits must be regarded as a whole. In organizing the district, the landowners joined in a common enterprise in which each was to pay a part of the total cost of accomplishing the common object. It could not.be expected that each would share equally in the immediate benefits of every detail. If the new work, the drainage ditches, had been specifically incorporated in the original plan of reclamation, their construction would not have lessened the benefits to the appellant’s land or changed his basis oí taxation. Evidently the failure to so incorporate and construct them was an error and resulted in failing to give other landowners the protection which they had a right to claim from the general enterprise. The correction of that error appears to have been in part the purpose of the additional bond issue. When the second bond issue is added to the first, the total is still below the aggregate benefits fixed by the board of appraisers. Section 55 of the Uasey Act refers to what shall be done in creating additional indebtedness. It has no reference to fixing the basis of taxation. The cases to which counsel for appellant refers were decided upon a different state of facts, and were controlled by different laws from those prevailing in this state.
As pointed ont in the motion for rehearing, there was an error in the original opinion in stating that the record did not show how much of the additional bond issue was to be used in constructing new work. The statement of facts contains the estimate of the engineer showing the length and cost of the ditches which constitute the new work. That estimate is considerably less than half of the proposed bond issue. But a correction of that error does not require a different disposition of the case.
The motion is overruled.