Corbett v. State

153 S.W.2d 664, 1941 Tex. App. LEXIS 723
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 10, 1941
DocketNo. 11238
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 153 S.W.2d 664 (Corbett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Corbett v. State, 153 S.W.2d 664, 1941 Tex. App. LEXIS 723 (Tex. Ct. App. 1941).

Opinion

MONTEITH, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by writ of error from a default judgment rendered in the district court of Brazoria County against plaintiff in error, Mrs. Ella M. Corbett, in a suit instituted by the State of Texas, for itself and for the use and benefit of Brazoria County and certain political subdivisions thereof, to recover from plaintiff in error and other parties at interest delinquent taxes, penalties, interest and costs of suit, and to foreclose alleged constitutional and tax liens upon 11 tracts of land located in Brazoria County, Texas, separately described in plaintiff’s petition.

For convenience, the parties hereto will be referred to as appellant and appellee.

Appellee’s suit was instituted for the use and benefit of all political subdivisions of Brazoria County whose taxes were collected by the assessor and collector of taxes of said county. In appellee’s petition, appellant Mrs. Ella M. Corbett, and all lien-holders and holders of mineral interests, are named as parties defendant. It is alleged that defendants were indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $1,873.79, according to the schedules therein set out; that the lands in question were situated in Brazoria County and within the boundaries of each political subdivision in whose behalf the suit was brought. Said lands, together with the total sum of the taxes, penalties, interest, and costs due up to the date of the filing of the petition on each separate tract of land, and the respective years for which they were delinquent, were set out and described therein. The schedule on each of the 11 tracts gives the aggregate amount of taxes due thereon broken up into a certain amount for each year. It alleges that said taxes accrued and were taxed against said property in the manner and form required by law; that they were authorized by law, and that each political subdivision in whose behalf the suit was brought was legally constituted and authorized to levy, assess, and collect said taxes and that all of said taxes were duly and legally levied and assessed against said property and the owners thereof, if known. Plaintiff asserted its prior constitutional and statutory tax lien on each tract of land to secure the payment of all of said taxes; and alleged that the attorney signing the petition was authorized to bring the suit. The prayer was for citation, for judgment against defendants for the total amount of said taxes, with all penalties and costs authorized by law, with foreclosure of tax lien against each tract of land.

, Service was had on all parties to the suit, including appellant, Mrs. Ella M. Corbett, who did not file an answer.

The judgment of the trial court recites that the plaintiff introduced in evidence the inventory sheets, assessment rolls and delinquent tax records of Brazoria County.

Judgment was rendered in behalf of the State of Texas, for Brazoria County, and for all parties in whose behalf the suit was filed, against all parties defendant for the full amount alleged to be due as delinquent. The judgment apportioned the aggregate amount of taxes against each tract, but did not apportion the sum as between the various taxing agencies. It established and foreclosed a lien against all parties defendant and rendered a personal judgment by default against the appellant, Mrs. Ella M. [666]*666Corbett, for the full sum of $1,868.33 of such taxes, and authorized the issuance of execution.

There is no statement of the facts introduced in the trial court outside of the recitations in the judgment in the record, therefore, in the absence of fundamental error, we must rely upon an examination of the pleadings and the judgment of the court in passing on the correctness of its judgment.

It is the settled law in this state that upon appeal every reasonable presumption must be indulged in favor of the judgment of the trial court. It must be presumed that the court based his findings upon the evidence presented, and that such evidence was sufficient to sustain all of the findings made, and in the absence of a statement of facts, as in the instant case, it must be presumed that every material fact alleged in the petition was proved upon the trial, unless there is an affirmative showing to the contrary.

Our courts have also uniformly held that the decrees of a district court entered in suits to foreclose tax liens are supported by all the presumptions which uphold judgments of domestic courts of such jurisdiction. Gamble et al. v. Banneyer, Tex.Com.App., 151 S.W.2d 586; State Mortgage Corp. v. Ludwig, 121 Tex. 268, 48 S.W.2d 950.

It is recited in the judgment of the trial court that appellee introduced in evidence the inventory sheets, assessment rolls, and delinquent tax records of Brazoria County; that the property (referring to the eleven tracts of land in question) was situated within the territorial limits of Brazoria County, Texas, and the several political subdivisions of said county in whose behalf judgment was rendered, naming them, and that such property “was so situated upon the dates upon which such taxes were assessed”, and that appellant was duly ' and lawfully indebted to the State, Brazoria County, and each of the political subdivisions in whose behalf suit was instituted, upon each of the eleven tracts of land described, in the sum alleged in plaintiffs petition to be due on each of said tracts.

Article 7326, Revised Statutes of 1925, provides in part that: “All delinquent tax records of said county in any county where such suit is brought shall be prima facie evidence of the true and correct amount of taxes and costs due by the defendant or defendants in such suit, and the same or certified copies thereof shall be admissible in the trial of such suit as evidence thereof.”

Article 7336, Revised Statutes, as amended, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 7336, provides in part: “Said list, as compiled by the Assessor and Collector of Taxes, and corrected by the Commissioners’ Court, or the rolls or books on file in the office of the Assessor and Collector of Taxes, shall be prima facie evidence that all the requirements of the law have been complied with by the officers of courts charged with any duty thereunder, as to regularity of listing, assessing, and levying of all taxes therein set out, and that the amount assessed against said real estate is a true and correct charge. If the description of the real estate in said list or assessment rolls or books is not sufficient to identify the same, but there is a sufficient description of the inventories in the office of the Assessor and Collector of Taxes, then said inventories shall be admissible as evidence of the description of said property.”

Under above statute the introduction by plaintiff of the evidence recited in the judgment, including the inventory sheets, assessment rolls, and delinquent tax records made a prima facie case as to every material fact necessary to the establishment of plaintiff’s cause of action.

Article 7328.1 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. was styled “An Act to simplify proceedings in delinquent tax suits”. It provides for a simplified form of petition in suits for collection of delinquent taxes and for a simplified description of both real and personal property sought to be foreclosed upon. It provides further, that the provisions of the act shall be cumulative of and in addition to all other rights and remedies to which taxing rmits are now entitled and expressly repeals all laws in conflict therewith.

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

Related

Jamison v. City of Pearland
489 S.W.2d 636 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
City of Corpus Christi v. Sudduth
466 S.W.2d 881 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Whaley v. Nocona Independent School District
339 S.W.2d 265 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Billingsley v. City of Fort Worth
278 S.W.2d 869 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)
Stone v. City of Dallas
244 S.W.2d 937 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1951)
American Republics Corp. v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas
198 S.W.2d 956 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1947)
Abilene Hotel Corporation v. Gill
187 S.W.2d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Cohen v. City of Houston
185 S.W.2d 450 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Highland Park Independent School Dist. v. Republic Ins. Co.
162 S.W.2d 1056 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 S.W.2d 664, 1941 Tex. App. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbett-v-state-texapp-1941.