El Reno Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Taylor

1922 OK 107, 209 P. 749, 87 Okla. 140, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 251
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 28, 1922
Docket12093
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 1922 OK 107 (El Reno Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Taylor) 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
El Reno Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 1922 OK 107, 209 P. 749, 87 Okla. 140, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 251 (Okla. 1922).

Opinions

HARRISON, C. J.

This is an original action, filed in this court under the provisions of chapter 25, Sess. Laws 1921. to enjoin the collection of the 1.5 mill rate, estimated by the State Board of Equalization to be the rate necessary to meet the expenses of state government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921. Two decisive questions are involved in the case, viz.: First, whether this court has original jurisdiction over the controversy; second, whether the levy is valid.

The plaintiff contends that this court has original jurisdiction, and that the levy is invalid. Defendant contends that this court does not have original jurisdiction, and that the levy is valid.

As to the qualification of original jurisdiction, section 1, chapter 25, Sess. Laws 1921, provides:

*142 “The Supreme Court of this state shall have original jurisdiction of actions brought therein to enjoin the enforcement or collection of any illegal tax, charge or assessment made or levied fo,r any state purpose and to enjoin the collection of any such tax, if it shall be found by the court that the same is illegal. Any number of persons against whom any such tax is levied or whose property is affected by any such tax may unite in the petition filed to obtain such injunction and, after any such petition has been filed by any person or persons, other persons similarly situated may, at the discretion of the court, upon permission granted it, join in such petition and become parties plaintiff in such action. Any such action may be brought against any officer or officers of the state or any officer or officers of any county or counties of the state charged with the duty under the statute of enforcing or collecting such tax.”

If the foregoing provisions of statute are not in conflict with constitutional provisions, then this court has original jurisdiction.

'Section 2, article 7, of the Constitution provides:

“The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Count shall be qo-extensive with the state, and shall extend to all civil cases at law and in equity, and to all criminal cases until a Criminal Court of Appeals with exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases shall be established by law. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to a general superintending control over all inferior courts and all commissions and boards created by law. The Supreme Court shall have power. to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, and such other remedial writs as may be provided by law, and to hear and determine the same;. and the Supreme Court may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by law.”

From the last provision above it is clear that the Legislature may confer other and further jurisdiction by law. Chapter 25, Sess. Laws 1921, at the most, cannot be said to do more than confer other and further jurisdiction. Therefore, the passage of the act was within the legislative power, and was a valid exercise of such power.

By this we are not to be understood. as holding that the Legislature is unlimited in its power to confer original jurisdiction upon this court. The primary purpose of the Constitution in creating this court was to create an appellate court, a court of last resort by appeal, and the Legislature could not so burden it With original jurisdiction as to destroy its primary function as a final court of appeals.

But in matters of such public interest, matters which directly affect the sovereign rights and powers of the state, as does this case, it is within the valid exercise of legislative power to confer original jurisdiction in such matters upon this court; the purpose of the act being to provide, a remedy against an invalid state tax.

Section • 7 of the act makes this provision:

“* * * Provided, the court shall first determine the validity of the tax levy under which any tax is sought to be restrained, enforced, collected or returned, and if said levy is found illegal the court shall enjoin the collection of said tax under said levy (found illegal as to all parties affected, whether they ¡be parties of said suit or not.”

Therefore, if the court should hold the levy to be illegal in its entirety, the entire state levy should be enjoined, as this procedure is authorized only as to state taxes and every taxpayer within the state is affected.

'Section 8 of the act above provides:

“The remedy ¡herein authorized shall not be exclusive or operate to repeal any statute of this state authorizing any proceeding for the recovery of illegal taxes paid, and shall . be cumulative; but shall not extend to any tax or taxes levied by any county or other municipality of the state.”

The provision, “but shall not extend to any tax or taxes levied by any county or municipality of the state,” precludes an original action in this court to enjoin the collection of any county or municipality tax or any fax except a state tax.

Section 6 of the above act provides:

“An action hereunder may be brought by any person or persons against whom any such tax complained of is levied or whose property is affected thereby at any time after such tax is levied. * * *”

The above provision gives any person affected by the tax the right to bring the action provided for in the act. Hence we hold that the Legislature has not exceeded its constitutional limitations in thus conferring ,original jurisdiction upon this court; also that, under the above provision of section 7 of the act, if this court, in any case, should determine a levy to be illegal and should enjoin the collection of same, the effect of such order would be to enjoin the collection of the entire state *143 levy; also, under section 8, that the- remedies provided in said act are not exclusive, but merely cumulative,, and that this remedy cannot be resorted to except to enjoin the collection of a state levy, also, under section 6, that any person affected by such tax may bring the action provided for.

As to the validity of the levy, one of the grounds urged by plaintiff is that levying a tax is a legislative act, and, assuming that the Board of Equalization had itself made the levy in question, and that it received authority to do so from the Legislature, contends . that the delegation of authority to the Board of Equalization to levy a tax is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, and that the tax levied under such authority is void.

It is probably true -that the levying of a tax is a legislative act and possibly true that the Legislature cannot delegate such authority -to the Board of Equalization. It is unnecessary, however, to decide either of these questions, for the simple reason that the Legislature has not delegated such authority to the Board of Equalization, nor has the Board of Equalization made the levy in question. The Constitution and statutes 'settle these questions.

Section 21, article 10, of the Constitution provides:

“There shall, be a.

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

Related

State v. Powell
2010 OK 40 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2010)
Oklahoma Turnpike Auth. v. DIST. COURT OF LINCOLN CTY.
1950 OK 147 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1950)
Application of Sewer Improvement Dist No. 1, Tulsa Cty
1950 OK 64 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1950)
Application of St. of Oklahoma Bldg. Bonds Commission
1950 OK 45 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1950)
Salaney v. Ferris
1948 OK 194 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1948)
Immega v. City of Elkhorn
34 N.W.2d 101 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1948)
Stevenson v. Friend
1945 OK 355 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1945)
In Re Funding Bonds of 1941, Series A.
1941 OK 391 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1941)
In Re State Treasury Note Indebtedness
1939 OK 218 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Branch v. Oklahoma County Excise Board
1938 OK 443 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Rogge v. Petroleum County
80 P.2d 380 (Montana Supreme Court, 1938)
Lowden v. Alfalfa County Excise Board
1938 OK 305 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Protest of St. Louis-S. F. R. Co.
1938 OK 296 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Davis v. Childers
1937 OK 728 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Gallion v. Excise Board of Oklahoma County
1935 OK 202 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Schofield v. Melton
1933 OK 447 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Protest of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
1933 OK 386 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Protest of Oklahoma Pipe Line Co.
1931 OK 27 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Monsell v. Excise Board
142 Okla. 130 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
In Re Monsell
1930 OK 31 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1922 OK 107, 209 P. 749, 87 Okla. 140, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/el-reno-wholesale-grocery-co-v-taylor-okla-1922.