Marquart v. Harris County

117 S.W.2d 494, 1938 Tex. App. LEXIS 605
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 12, 1938
DocketNo. 10794.
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 117 S.W.2d 494 (Marquart v. Harris County) 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
Marquart v. Harris County, 117 S.W.2d 494, 1938 Tex. App. LEXIS 605 (Tex. Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

GRAVES,. Justice.

Appellants, as property taxpayers, brought this suit against Harris County, its Commissioners, and Tax Assessor-Collector, praying for an order restraining them, until trial on the merits, (1) from proceeding (in whole, or alternatively in part) with a property-valuation contfact between the County and two firms of individuals, as experts, of all the taxable property in Harris County, dated March 14 of 1938 and later supplemented — a substantial copy of the original being appended hereto as an exhibit — 1 and (2) from paying out thereon any of the county’s funds. It was alleged that J. W. Hall, Tax Assessor, and one of the Commissioners, R. H. Spencer, *496 Bad opposed the- contract, and they were made parties-defendant. The contractors undertaking' to do the valuation work, namely, the firms of Freese & Nichols and Pritchard & Abbott, were also made parties-defendant. Defendants Spencer and *497 Hall joined in as party-plaintiffs by separate pleadings, praying that the injunction be granted. The court heard testimony at length before entering the order appealed from, whereby the temporary writ so 'sought was refused. From that order, the Taxpayers and Spencer appeal, naming all the other parties as appellees.

*498 The sued-upon contract, in its entirety, was hot only a part of the pleadings, but of the evidence as well; while it does not otherwise appear from the record here whether the Comptroller and Attorney General of the State failed or refused to approve it, it is affirmatively shown on the - face of the contract itself (hence as a part *499 of both pleadings and proof) that neither of these officers did in fact approve it. Only the parts of the long document deemed most material to this opinion will be specially adverted to.

In the preamble it is recited that it is desired to, as far as possible, eliminate unknown ownership, to have compiled, for the use of the Assessor, records showing the record-owners of all property, and *500 that the court desires to set up and place into effect a more efficient plan and system to aid in the assessment of property for taxation and to aid in the adjustment, collection, and equalization of taxes generally.

It contemplates a revaluation of all the property of Harris County, “of the types now being generally • assessed for taxation,” Paragraph II, expressive of that purpose as permeating the whole, being as follows :

“The intention of this contract is that all properties, subject to taxation of the types now generally taxed in Harris County shall be embraced in the terms of this contract, whether specially set forth herein or not, and on any of such taxes, the contractors shall appraise the same and file a report thereon in the manner and form prescribed generally for other properties so far as applicable.”

Other provisions, in whole or in part, are these:

From the preamble:

“Whereas, the Commissioners’ Court of Harris County desires to employ skilled experts in the matter of the discovery, appraisal, and valuation of property in Harris County, Texas, of the types now being assessed in said County for taxation, to the end that said Court may * * * place upon the rolls of Harris County properties of said types now escaping taxation, and desires to eliminate so far ..as possible unknown ownerships and to have compiled for its use and the use *501 of its assessor and collector of taxes * * * ■.
“Whereas, The court finds that much property in said County is entirely escaping taxation * * ⅜ and otherwise the full amount that could be realized as taxes is not being realized by said County; and
“Whereas, The Commissioners’ Court of said County desires to. set up and place into effect a. more efficient plan and system to aid in the assessment of property for taxation and to aid in the adjustment, collection, and equalization of taxes generally.” ■ ■

From Paragraph III:

“Personal Property: The Contractors agree to diligently search for, survey, identify the owner of, and make an appraisal of, all personal property in said County of the type now generally assessed for taxation therein, showing the value of such property, as of January 1, 1938.”

From Paragraph I:

“Oil, Gas and Mineral Properties: The Contractors agree to make in writing an .analytical appraisal of each and every place of real property in said County producing oil, and/or gas, whether held tinker fee title, mineral deed, lease, or royalty assignment, or otherwise, which shall show the value of each such interest as of January 1, 1938. The Contractors shall furnish a detailed inventory of all personal property on each piece of property in said County producing oil and/or gas, whether held under lease or operated by a fee owner.”

From Paragraph IV:

“Land Valuation: The Contractors agree to furnish the services of experts in systematic methods of land and building valuation to complete a land and building valuation survey for the entire County, and file a complete report of said land and building values for the use of the Board of Equalization and the Assessor and Collector of Taxes.”

From Paragraph XIII:

“Expert Testimony in Law Suits: The Contractors agree to furnish without cost to the County expert testimony in the matter of any and all suits that may be filed and reached for trial before May 1, 1939, which suits in any manner contest the correctness or validity of any assessment made pursuant to any information furnished by the Contractors. All such assistants so furnished shall have the necessary experience and background to qualify as highly specialized technical experts. After May 1, 1939, the Contractors shall be paid for expert testimony in case of suit on matters arising from the valuation fixed by the- Board of Equalization at its session in 1938, the sum to be agreed upon not to exceed $50 for each, day or part thereof of testimony actually required, plus necessary actual living and traveling expenses of the witness testifying.”

From Paragraph XIV:

“Orders: The' County of Harris agrees to, at any time the same may become necessary, pass and enter of record in connection with this contract such orders as may be necessary.”

It is the opinion of this court that such contract was ultra vires the powers of the commissioners’ court, and therefore void in toto, which conclusion has been arrived at upon these, among other, considerations:

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

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2000
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1990
Pritchard & Abbott v. McKenna
350 S.W.2d 333 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
Pritchard & Abbott v. McKenna
343 S.W.2d 752 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Whitney v. City of Terrell
278 S.W.2d 909 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)
Crosby v. P. L. Marquess & Co.
226 S.W.2d 461 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Aldrich v. Dallas County
167 S.W.2d 560 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Mills-Dewitt Co. v. Brazoria County
142 S.W.2d 916 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Harris County v. Bassett
139 S.W.2d 180 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 S.W.2d 494, 1938 Tex. App. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marquart-v-harris-county-texapp-1938.