Halff Bro. v. Green

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Halff Bro. v. Green

1900 OK 73, 62 P. 816, 10 Okla. 338, 1900 Okla. LEXIS 33

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 30, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1900 OK 73 (Halff Bro. v. Green) 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

Halff Bro. v. Green, 1900 OK 73, 62 P. 816, 10 Okla. 338, 1900 Okla. LEXIS 33 (Okla. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Burwell, J.:

Meyer Halff and Solomon Halff w'ere partners doing business under the firm name of M. Halff & Bro. This firm brought into the Osage Indian reservation during the months of March and April, 1898, 3,800 head of cattle and 16 horses for the purpose of grazing the same in transit for market. The officers of Pawnee county, (said reservation being attached to Pawnee county at that time for judicial and taxing purposes,) assessed these cattle and horses for that year.

The facts in this case are the same as the facts in the cases of Collins & Wallace v. Green, Treasurer, et al. and *339 Lasater & Noble v. Green, Treasurer, et al., decided at the present term of this court, and to which the parties to this action are referred for the reasons for the judgment in this case, except, in this case the plaintiff s admitted that a certain portion of the taxes claimed (which were the taxes levied on the horses) were just and legal and this sum, together with the costs on the tax-warrant, the plaintiff tendered to the county treasurer before bringing this suit; but they make no offer to pay such further taxes as the court may find to be just; and as they have not offered to do equity, the court will deny them any equitable relief. (Collins & Wallace v. Green, Treasurer, et al. supra; Lasater & Noble v. Green, Treasurer, et al. supra; State Railroad Tax cases, 92 U. S. 616; Kimball v. National Bank, 103 U. S. 733.)

The allegation in the petition that, “the cattle were brought into the reservation for the purpose of grazing the same in transit to market,” is not sufficient to take these cattle out of the general rule.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, and costs of this, as well as those of the lower court, are taxed to appellants.

Hainer, J., having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring,

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

Opinion of the court by

Burwell, J.:

Meyer Halff and Solomon Halff w'ere partners doing business under the firm name of M. Halff & Bro. This firm brought into the Osage Indian reservation during the months of March and April, 1898, 3,800 head of cattle and 16 horses for the purpose of grazing the same in transit for market. The officers of Pawnee county, (said reservation being attached to Pawnee county at that time for judicial and taxing purposes,) assessed these cattle and horses for that year.

The facts in this case are the same as the facts in the cases of Collins & Wallace v. Green, Treasurer, et al. and *339 Lasater & Noble v. Green, Treasurer, et al., decided at the present term of this court, and to which the parties to this action are referred for the reasons for the judgment in this case, except, in this case the plaintiff s admitted that a certain portion of the taxes claimed (which were the taxes levied on the horses) were just and legal and this sum, together with the costs on the tax-warrant, the plaintiff tendered to the county treasurer before bringing this suit; but they make no offer to pay such further taxes as the court may find to be just; and as they have not offered to do equity, the court will deny them any equitable relief. (Collins & Wallace v. Green, Treasurer, et al. supra; Lasater & Noble v. Green, Treasurer, et al. supra; State Railroad Tax cases, 92 U. S. 616; Kimball v. National Bank, 103 U. S. 733.)

The allegation in the petition that, “the cattle were brought into the reservation for the purpose of grazing the same in transit to market,” is not sufficient to take these cattle out of the general rule.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, and costs of this, as well as those of the lower court, are taxed to appellants.

Hainer, J., having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1900 OK 73, 62 P. 816, 10 Okla. 338, 1900 Okla. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halff-bro-v-green-okla-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack