City of Odessa v. Elliott

47 S.W.2d 866
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 10, 1932·No. No. 2631·Published

Opinion

HIGGINS, J.

This is a suit by appellant against appellee to recover taxes' for the years 1927, 1928, 1929,1930, and to foreclose the statutory lien.

The defendant answered by general denial, special plea setting up that no ordinances had ever been passed levying such taxes and other matters not necessary to state.

Upon trial without a jury, judgment was ¡rendered in appellant’s favor for all taxes [867]*867claimed for the year 1927 and a portion of the taxes claimed for the years 1928 and 1929, and denied recovery of any taxes for the year 1930.

The recovery for the year 1928 was limited to 30 cents on the $100 valuation levied for street improvement bonds, series 1928, and for the' year 1929 recovery was limited to eighteen cents on the $100 valuation ¡levied for funding warrants series 1929.

On July 28, 1927, the town of Odessa accepted the provisions of title 28, E. S. 1925. The record of the proceedings shows that the town was of the class designated in article 961, E. S.

The testimony shows it has a population of less than 5,000.

The tax levy for the year 1930 Was attempted to he made by the city council by a simple motion unanimously adopted “that the tax for the City for 1930 be $1.50 on the one hundred dollars valuation and that it be divided: 95 cents to Water and Sewer Bonds; 30 cents to Paving Bonds; 18 cents to Funding Warrants and 7 cents to the General Fund.”

It is settled that the motion was ineffective for the purpose intended; an ordinance being necessary. Article 1026, R. S. Vance v. Town of Pleasanton (Tex. Civ. App.) 261 S. W. 457; Id. (Tex. Com. App.) 277 S. W. 89; Coffee v. Castleberry (Tex. Civ. App) 258 S. W. 889; Id. (Tex. Com. App.) 272 S. W. 767; City of Liberty v. Llewellyn (Tex. Civ. App.) 15 S.W.(2d) 713.

The levies for the years 1928 and 1929 were attempted to be. made in like manner. So, if the court properly denied recovery of all taxes for the year 1930, it follows the recoveries for the years 1928 and 1929 were properly limited.

■ The reason for the partial recoveries allowed for 1928 and 1929 will later appear.

On August 4, 1927, the city council duly passed an! ordinance entitled: “An ordinance ratifying and confirming a contract entered into by and between the City of Odessa, Texas, and Perry O’Neil, for the purpose of furnishing all materials and labor in the construction of a Waterworks System, Sewer System and Disposal Plant, in and for said City; providing for the issuance of six per cent (6%) Warrants in the total principal sum of one hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars ($165,000.00), in payment for said work; prescribing form of warrant; and levying the necessary tax to pay the interest and provide sufficient sinking fund to redeem the principal of said warrants at maturity,” providing, among other things, as follows:

“Be it further ordained by the city council of the city of Odessa, Texas:
• “That in order to pay the interest on said warrants and the principal thereof at maturity, there shall be, and there is hereby levied, and ordered collected, in the City of Odessa, Texas, an annual ad valorem tax on all taxable property in said City sufficient to pay the same, and particularly to produce as a minimum the following amounts in the following years:
(Here follows like tabulations for the succeeding years to and including 1944.)
“No mistake in the above calculations shall in any manner operate to diminish the payment of the amounts to become due on said warrants, but a sufficient tax is hereby levied and ordered collected for each of said years on all taxable property in the said City to fully pay the same.
“Be it further ordained by the city council' of the city of Odessa, Texas:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Odessa v. Elliott, 47 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Ct. App. 1932).

47 S.W.2d 866 (City of Odessa v. Elliott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Liberty v. Llewellyn
15 S.W.2d 713 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
County of Mitchell v. City National Bank
43 S.W. 880 (Texas Supreme Court, 1898)
Coffee v. Castleberry
258 S.W. 889 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Mecom v. Ford
252 S.W. 491 (Texas Supreme Court, 1923)
Dill v. City of Rising Star
269 S.W. 769 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1925)
Castleberry v. Coffee
272 S.W. 767 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1925)
Town of Pleasanton v. Vance
277 S.W. 89 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1925)
Yorktown Independent School Dist. v. Afflerbach
12 S.W.2d 130 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1929)
Emeric v. Alvarado
2 P. 418 (California Supreme Court, 1884)
Perry County v. Selma, Marion & Memphis Railroad
58 Ala. 546 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1877)
State v. Lakeside Land Co.
73 N.W. 970 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1898)