Carroll, Brough Robinson v. Board of Commissioners

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Carroll, Brough Robinson v. Board of Commissioners

1917 OK 351, 166 P. 702, 64 Okla. 165, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 609

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 10, 1917

Docket6130

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1917 OK 351 (Carroll, Brough Robinson v. Board of Commissioners) 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

Carroll, Brough Robinson v. Board of Commissioners, 1917 OK 351, 166 P. 702, 64 Okla. 165, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 609 (Okla. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDY, J.

This was a proceeding commenced by plaintiff in error before the board of county commissioners of Oklahoma county, to secure a rebate of taxes, in which an appeal was taken to the distinct court of Oklahoma county. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

In January, 1312, plaintiff’s property was assessed for taxation at 'the sum of $173,500 by the local taxing officials. When the assessment rolls were certified to the State-Board of Equalization, that board raised all corporation assessments 15 per cent., whiqh increased the assessment of plaintiff’s property from $173,500 to $199,525, or an increase of $26,025. Thereafter, on July 1, 1913, plaintiff filed with the board of county commissioners a petition for a rebate of taxes, which petition, after consideration by said board of commissioners, was disallowed, and thereupon plaintiff appealed to the district court of Oklahoma county. After the appeal was lodged in the distinct court, a demurrer to the petition of plaintiff was sustained, and from the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer this appeal is taken.

Plaintiff bases its claim to the relief which it seeks upon section 14, ch. 152, Sess. Laws 1910-11, which authorized the board of county commissioners to hear and determine allegations of erroneous assessments or mistakes or differences in the description or value of land or other property, at any session of said board, before the taxes were paid. This section has been declared unconstitutional, and therefore the remedy therein provided was not available to plaintiff. In re Appeal of Eranklin Hickman, 63 Okla. 14, 162 Pac. 176; Weatherly v. Cloworth Development Company, 63 Okla. 397, 166 Pac. 156; Weatherly v. Sawyer, 63 Okla. 155, 163 Pac. 717. The board of county’ commissioners being without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s petition for a rebate of taxes, the district court acquired none upon appeal to that court.

This being time, this court is without authority or jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters presented, and the cause is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except ICANE, J., absent.

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

HARDY, J.

This was a proceeding commenced by plaintiff in error before the board of county commissioners of Oklahoma county, to secure a rebate of taxes, in which an appeal was taken to the distinct court of Oklahoma county. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

In January, 1312, plaintiff’s property was assessed for taxation at 'the sum of $173,500 by the local taxing officials. When the assessment rolls were certified to the State-Board of Equalization, that board raised all corporation assessments 15 per cent., whiqh increased the assessment of plaintiff’s property from $173,500 to $199,525, or an increase of $26,025. Thereafter, on July 1, 1913, plaintiff filed with the board of county commissioners a petition for a rebate of taxes, which petition, after consideration by said board of commissioners, was disallowed, and thereupon plaintiff appealed to the district court of Oklahoma county. After the appeal was lodged in the distinct court, a demurrer to the petition of plaintiff was sustained, and from the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer this appeal is taken.

Plaintiff bases its claim to the relief which it seeks upon section 14, ch. 152, Sess. Laws 1910-11, which authorized the board of county commissioners to hear and determine allegations of erroneous assessments or mistakes or differences in the description or value of land or other property, at any session of said board, before the taxes were paid. This section has been declared unconstitutional, and therefore the remedy therein provided was not available to plaintiff. In re Appeal of Eranklin Hickman, 63 Okla. 14, 162 Pac. 176; Weatherly v. Cloworth Development Company, 63 Okla. 397, 166 Pac. 156; Weatherly v. Sawyer, 63 Okla. 155, 163 Pac. 717. The board of county’ commissioners being without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s petition for a rebate of taxes, the district court acquired none upon appeal to that court.

This being time, this court is without authority or jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters presented, and the cause is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except ICANE, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK 351, 166 P. 702, 64 Okla. 165, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-brough-robinson-v-board-of-commissioners-okla-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack