TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nolan, Sheriff v. San Antonio Ranch Co.

J. W. Nolan, Sheriff and Tax Collector, Etc. v. San Antonio Ranch Company.

Nolan v. San Antonio Ranch Co., 16 S.W. 1064 (Tex. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 9, 1891
Docket
No. 7683.
Judges
Stayton
Citations
16 S.W. 106481 Tex. 3151891 Tex. LEXIS 1359
Headnotes
1. Tax Upon. Cattle in Pastures Lying in Two or More Counties.—Under General Laws of 1889, page 29, cattle in pastures which lie in two or more counties must be rendered for taxation to the several counties in proportion that the land in each county is to the whole pasture. The taxes shall be paid where rendered. 3. Same—Place of Management Immaterial.-—The statute (Gen. Laws 1889, p. 29) governs, and it is of no consequence where the place of general management of cattle in pastures in two or more counties may be kept. 3. Assessment. — An assessment of personal property will be presumed to have been properly made in absence of proof showing otherwise.
Summary
The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Stayton

STAYTON, Chief Justice.

Appellee owned a ranch situated in Maverick and Kinney counties, which according to the averments of the petition embraces about 250,000 acres, on which it had about 10,000 cattle in the year 1889. Eive thousand of these were assessed for taxation in Kinney County, and the collector had seized some of them for the purpose of sale to pay the sum due on the assessment, when this suit was brought to restrain him on the ground that the taxes on all the cattle had been paid in Maverick County.

The petition alleges that about 200,000 acres of appellee’s pasture was in Maverick County and about 50,000 acres in Kinney County, but there was no proof as to this except a sketch showing the entire pasture, its form, and the line between the two counties, from.which it appears that about one-half of the pasture is in each county.

Appellee is a corporation having its principal office in Bexar County, and to avoid the payment of taxes in Kinney County it alleged and sought to prove that the business of the ranch was conducted at a place in Maverick County at which the manager resided, but there was evidence tending to show that there was a ranch establishment in Kinney County from which the cattle in its vicinity were managed.

The case was evidently tried on the theory that if the taxes were paid in the county in which the principal management of the ranch was conducted this would relieve appellee from liability to pay taxes in the other county, and a judgment was rendered in favor of appellee doubtless on that theory, which may have been based on the opinion in the case of Court v. O’ Connor, 65 Texas, 334 .

Since the decision of that case, however, the Legislature enacted the following law: “All persons, companies, and corporations owning-pastures in this State which lie on county boundaries shall be required to list for assessment all live stock of any kind owned by them in said pastures in the several counties in which such pastures are situated, listing in each county such portion of sáid stock as the land in such county is of the whole pasture. All persons, companies, and corporations owning any kind of live stock in pastures not their own shall list such live stock in the several counties ill which such pastures are situated in the same manner, and in both cases the tax'assessed upon such live stock shall be paid to the tax collectors of the several counties in which such live stock is listed and assessed.” Gen. Laws 1887, p. 109; Gen. Laws 1889, p. 29.

*317 This law was doubtless enacted to supply an omission in the law existing at the time the facts transpired which gave rise to the case of Court v. O’ Connor, and to give effect in an equitable manner to the provision of the Constitution which declares that “all property, whether owned by persons or corporations, shall be assessed for taxation and the taxes paid in the county where situated, but the Legislature may by a two-thirds vote authorize the payment of taxes of nonresidents of counties to be made at the office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts.” Const., art. 8, sec. 11.

The laws quoted must govern this case, and it was wholly unimportant where the management of the ranch was located, or that the land used for pasture purposes may not have been entirely inclosed or inclosed at all.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary the presumption is that the assessment was properly made, and in this case if the assessment was open to inquiry the burden of proving its incorrectness was on the plaintiff, and in the absence of such proof judgment should have been rendered for defendant.

The judgment of the court below will therefore be reversed, the injunction heretofore granted will be dissolved, and judgment will be here rendered in favor of appellant against appellee for the use of the State of Texas and county of Kinney, as each may be entitled, for the sum of $232.50, together with all costs incurred in the court below and in this court.

It is so ordered.

Reversed and rendered.

Delivered June 9, 1891.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1897: 11922: 11946: 11964: 11968: 11974: 11984: 11985: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Great Southern Life Insurance v. City of Austin243 S.W. 778 (Tex. 1922)
  2. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. M-321 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1968)
  3. Oake v. Collin County692 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1985)
  4. Plano Independent School District v. Oake682 S.W.2d 359 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1984)
  5. McDaniel v. Castro County514 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. App. 1974)
  6. City of Amarillo v. Carter380 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. App. 1964)

Most recent

  1. Oake v. Collin County692 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1985)
  2. Plano Independent School District v. Oake682 S.W.2d 359 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1984)
  3. McDaniel v. Castro County514 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. App. 1974)
  4. Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionNo. M-321 (Tex. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1968)
  5. City of Amarillo v. Carter380 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. App. 1964)
  6. Walker v. Baker196 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. 1946) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Court v. O'Connor, 65 Tex. 334 (1886) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list