Board of Comrs. of Roger Mills Co. v. Sauer

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Board of Comrs. of Roger Mills Co. v. Sauer

1899 OK 89, 58 P. 625, 8 Okla. 409, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 78

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 25, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1899 OK 89 (Board of Comrs. of Roger Mills Co. v. Sauer) 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

Board of Comrs. of Roger Mills Co. v. Sauer, 1899 OK 89, 58 P. 625, 8 Okla. 409, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 78 (Okla. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

■Opinion of the court by

Hainer, J.:

This was an action brought in the district court of Roger Millsi county by the defendants in ■error against the plaintiff in error, to recover the sum • of $359.71 with interest thereon, upon four county warrants, isued by said county, and subsequently purchased by the defendants in error, who are the owners, and holders thereof. The defendant in its answer set up as a ■ defense that the county had no power to- create a debt, for the reason that thie first annual assessment of said county was made and completed on July 26, 1893, and that the indebtedness was incurred, and the warrants issued in settlement thereof, prior to ' the said first .assessment, and therefore that said warrants were absolutely void, for having created an indebtednes in violation of the act of congress of July 30, 1886, which prescribes, among other things, that no county shall ever become indebted in excess of 4 per centum of the value of the taxable property therein, to be ascertained by the la.st assessment for tei’ritoria-1 and county taxés previous to the incurring of -such indebtedness..

To* this answer the plaintiffs demurred, upon the ground that said answer failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to- said action. The court sustained the demurrer to the answer; to which ruling of the court the defendant duly excepted, and declined -to plead further. Thereupon the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants, for the sum of $454.64, and costs of the action; to which .ruling and judgment of the court the defendant duly *411 ■excepted, and brings the case here on a case-made, to be •reviewed by this court.

We -think the demurrer was properly sustained. The ■only defense to the action was that the county had no power to incur any indebtedness, for the reason that no assessment had been made prior to the incurring of such indebtedness. This is untenable. The case comes clearly within the rule laid down in the case of Board v. Rowden, this volume p. 406, 58 Pac. 624, where this court held that a newly-organized county in this Territory has the power to create a valid indebtedness, and issue warrants as an ■evidence thereof, prior to the making and completion of an assessment for the purposes of territorial and county taxation, to meet the ordinary expenses which are necessary to carry on and conduct the functions of county government; and the incurring of such an indebtedness is not in contravention of section 4 of the act of congress approved July 80, 1886, which prescribes, among other things, that no county shall ever become indebted in excess of 4 per centum of the value of the taxable property therein, to be ascertained by the last assessment for territorial and county taxes previous to the incurring ■of such indebtedness. The judgment of the district ■court is therefore affirmed.

Burwell, J., not sitting; McAfee, J., and Irwin, J., ■concurring; Burford, C. J., dissenting.

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

■Opinion of the court by

Hainer, J.:

This was an action brought in the district court of Roger Millsi county by the defendants in ■error against the plaintiff in error, to recover the sum • of $359.71 with interest thereon, upon four county warrants, isued by said county, and subsequently purchased by the defendants in error, who are the owners, and holders thereof. The defendant in its answer set up as a ■ defense that the county had no power to- create a debt, for the reason that thie first annual assessment of said county was made and completed on July 26, 1893, and that the indebtedness was incurred, and the warrants issued in settlement thereof, prior to ' the said first .assessment, and therefore that said warrants were absolutely void, for having created an indebtednes in violation of the act of congress of July 30, 1886, which prescribes, among other things, that no county shall ever become indebted in excess of 4 per centum of the value of the taxable property therein, to be ascertained by the la.st assessment for tei’ritoria-1 and county taxés previous to the incurring of -such indebtedness..

To* this answer the plaintiffs demurred, upon the ground that said answer failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to- said action. The court sustained the demurrer to the answer; to which ruling of the court the defendant duly excepted, and declined -to plead further. Thereupon the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and against the defendants, for the sum of $454.64, and costs of the action; to which .ruling and judgment of the court the defendant duly *411 ■excepted, and brings the case here on a case-made, to be •reviewed by this court.

We -think the demurrer was properly sustained. The ■only defense to the action was that the county had no power to incur any indebtedness, for the reason that no assessment had been made prior to the incurring of such indebtedness. This is untenable. The case comes clearly within the rule laid down in the case of Board v. Rowden, this volume p. 406, 58 Pac. 624, where this court held that a newly-organized county in this Territory has the power to create a valid indebtedness, and issue warrants as an ■evidence thereof, prior to the making and completion of an assessment for the purposes of territorial and county taxation, to meet the ordinary expenses which are necessary to carry on and conduct the functions of county government; and the incurring of such an indebtedness is not in contravention of section 4 of the act of congress approved July 80, 1886, which prescribes, among other things, that no county shall ever become indebted in excess of 4 per centum of the value of the taxable property therein, to be ascertained by the last assessment for territorial and county taxes previous to the incurring ■of such indebtedness. The judgment of the district ■court is therefore affirmed.

Burwell, J., not sitting; McAfee, J., and Irwin, J., ■concurring; Burford, C. J., dissenting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1899 OK 89, 58 P. 625, 8 Okla. 409, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-comrs-of-roger-mills-co-v-sauer-okla-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack