Bailess v. Paukune

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bailess v. Paukune

1953 OK 56, 254 P.2d 349, 208 Okla. 146, 1953 Okla. LEXIS 735

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 24, 1953

DocketNo. 34547

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1953 OK 56 (Bailess v. Paukune) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailess v. Paukune, 1953 OK 56, 254 P.2d 349, 208 Okla. 146, 1953 Okla. LEXIS 735 (Okla. 1953).

Pincite

Opinions

WELCH, Justice.'

This is an action by Juana Paukune to enjoin the County Assessor of Caddo County, Oklahoma, from listing and assessing real estate located in Caddo County for ad valorem taxes, and to permanently enjoin the County Treasurer of Caddo County from selling the land for delinquent taxes, and to strike said land from the tax rolls and to enjoin the board of county commissioners of Caddo County from claiming any right, title or interest in the lands by reason of the levy and assessment of ad valorem taxes against same. The trial court granted the injunction, and the defendants appealed.

In a former opinion this court affirmed, upon construction of the General Allotment Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 389, and, particularly, Sec. 5 of that Act, 25 U.S.C.A. § 348. Bailess v. Paukune, 206 Okl. 527, 244 P.2d 1137. In that decision we quoted the statute and stated the facts.

On appeal from our decision the Supreme Court of the United States reversed on the theory that the purpose of such stat[351]*351utes is to furnish protection of Indians, not to furnish protection of non-Indians, and that since Juana is not' an Indian the statute furnishes her land or her interest in the land no such protection from tax liability. Bailess v. Paukune, 344 U.S. 171, 73 S.Ct. 198, 97 L.Ed. —.

The decision of that court is binding upon every one on this Federal question. See Texas Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Okl.Sup., 249 P.2d 982, and authorities therein cited.

Therefore, our former decision herein of April 29, 1952, Bailess v. Paukune, 206 Okl. 527, 244 P.2d 1137, is overruled. The judgment of the trial court originally appealed from herein is reversed, and the trial court is directed to vacate its judgment for plaintiff and to dismiss plaintiff’s action.

HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and CORN, ARNOLD, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur. DAVISON and O’NEAL, JJ., dissent.

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

WELCH, Justice.'

This is an action by Juana Paukune to enjoin the County Assessor of Caddo County, Oklahoma, from listing and assessing real estate located in Caddo County for ad valorem taxes, and to permanently enjoin the County Treasurer of Caddo County from selling the land for delinquent taxes, and to strike said land from the tax rolls and to enjoin the board of county commissioners of Caddo County from claiming any right, title or interest in the lands by reason of the levy and assessment of ad valorem taxes against same. The trial court granted the injunction, and the defendants appealed.

In a former opinion this court affirmed, upon construction of the General Allotment Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 389, and, particularly, Sec. 5 of that Act, 25 U.S.C.A. § 348. Bailess v. Paukune, 206 Okl. 527, 244 P.2d 1137. In that decision we quoted the statute and stated the facts.

On appeal from our decision the Supreme Court of the United States reversed on the theory that the purpose of such stat[351]*351utes is to furnish protection of Indians, not to furnish protection of non-Indians, and that since Juana is not' an Indian the statute furnishes her land or her interest in the land no such protection from tax liability. Bailess v. Paukune, 344 U.S. 171, 73 S.Ct. 198, 97 L.Ed. —.

The decision of that court is binding upon every one on this Federal question. See Texas Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Okl.Sup., 249 P.2d 982, and authorities therein cited.

Therefore, our former decision herein of April 29, 1952, Bailess v. Paukune, 206 Okl. 527, 244 P.2d 1137, is overruled. The judgment of the trial court originally appealed from herein is reversed, and the trial court is directed to vacate its judgment for plaintiff and to dismiss plaintiff’s action.

HALLEY, C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and CORN, ARNOLD, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur. DAVISON and O’NEAL, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1953 OK 56, 254 P.2d 349, 208 Okla. 146, 1953 Okla. LEXIS 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailess-v-paukune-okla-1953.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack