G. W. Proctor v. M. U. Smith

Court of Appeals of Texas

G. W. Proctor v. M. U. Smith

299 S.W. 663

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 26, 1927

DocketNo. 7003.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 299 S.W. 663 (G. W. Proctor v. M. U. Smith) 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

G. W. Proctor v. M. U. Smith, 299 S.W. 663 (Tex. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BLAIR, J.

Appellant states in his brief that

“this case and No. 7002 (Stair v. M. U. Smith et al., 299 S. W. 660, which was this day affirmed by this court) * * * are substantially identical in all respects.” The two were heard together by the board of equalization, and by agreement of the parties tried together in the trial court; that is, all pertinent evidence offered in the former case was considered as offered in this case. In this case appellant assessed his property at a valuation of $23,000, and the board after the hearing, raised the assessment to $70,000, and from a judgment denying appellant’s prayer for an order enjoining appellees' from enforcing and collecting taxes on that valuation this appeal is perfected. With the exception of the proposition in reference to the alleged demurrer to the evidence presented in No. 7002, which is not involved in this case, the two appeals present identical propositions; that is, it is contended here that the board raised the assessment without having any legal evidence, and that it acted arbitrarily in the matter, and, further, that the one-eighth oil royalty was not taxable as a part of the realty. We find that the evidence sufficiently supports the action of the board in raising the assessment, and that the trial court correctly denied the injunctive relief sought herein, and base our decision upon the reasoning and authorities cited in our opinion in cause No. 7002, Stair v. Smith, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BLAIR, J.

Appellant states in his brief that

“this case and No. 7002 (Stair v. M. U. Smith et al., 299 S. W. 660, which was this day affirmed by this court) * * * are substantially identical in all respects.” The two were heard together by the board of equalization, and by agreement of the parties tried together in the trial court; that is, all pertinent evidence offered in the former case was considered as offered in this case. In this case appellant assessed his property at a valuation of $23,000, and the board after the hearing, raised the assessment to $70,000, and from a judgment denying appellant’s prayer for an order enjoining appellees' from enforcing and collecting taxes on that valuation this appeal is perfected. With the exception of the proposition in reference to the alleged demurrer to the evidence presented in No. 7002, which is not involved in this case, the two appeals present identical propositions; that is, it is contended here that the board raised the assessment without having any legal evidence, and that it acted arbitrarily in the matter, and, further, that the one-eighth oil royalty was not taxable as a part of the realty. We find that the evidence sufficiently supports the action of the board in raising the assessment, and that the trial court correctly denied the injunctive relief sought herein, and base our decision upon the reasoning and authorities cited in our opinion in cause No. 7002, Stair v. Smith, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 S.W. 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-w-proctor-v-m-u-smith-texapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack