Means v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Means v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1

1935 OK 322, 42 P.2d 809, 171 Okla. 225, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 153

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 26, 1935

DocketNo. 23890.

StatusPublished

This text of 1935 OK 322 (Means v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1) 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

Means v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1, 1935 OK 322, 42 P.2d 809, 171 Okla. 225, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 153 (Okla. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PHELPS, J.

This is an appeal from the district court of Tulsa county, wherein consolidated school district No. 1 of Tulsa county and C. A. Munsey, a taxpayer therein, sued the excise board and county assessor and obtained a mandatory order directing the defendants to estimate and levy a tax on the basis of, and against, the entire area forming the school district as it had existed prior to an order of the county superintendent detácüang a portion thereof and attaching it to another school district, instead of estimating and levying it against the district in its thus reduced size and valuation.

To understand the questions of law involved in this case it is only necessary to refer 'to our opinion filed June 13, 1933, in Protest of Hamilton, 164 Okla. 116, 23 P. (2d) 198. In this ease the status and relationship of the parties, and the facts, are the same as in the Hamilton Case, except that case involved the levy for the fiscal year 1931-32 and was appealed from the Court of Tax Review, and this case involves levies for fiscal years subsequent to 1931-32 and is here on appeal from a judgment of the distriet.court granting a writ of mandamus.

After the Hamilton Case was appealed to this court, and before it was decided, all parties joined in a motion in the instant case wherein they agreed that the same facts and the same questions of law were involved in both cases, and wherein they asked permission of this court to submit this case on the briefs filed in the Hamilton Case.

Accordingly, on the authority of Protest of Hamilton, in which we held that the county superintendent’s order of annexation was void, the judgment of the trial court, granting the writ, is affirmed.

McNEILL, C. j., OSBORN, V. C. j., and BAYLESS and CORN, JJ., concur.

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

PHELPS, J.

This is an appeal from the district court of Tulsa county, wherein consolidated school district No. 1 of Tulsa county and C. A. Munsey, a taxpayer therein, sued the excise board and county assessor and obtained a mandatory order directing the defendants to estimate and levy a tax on the basis of, and against, the entire area forming the school district as it had existed prior to an order of the county superintendent detácüang a portion thereof and attaching it to another school district, instead of estimating and levying it against the district in its thus reduced size and valuation.

To understand the questions of law involved in this case it is only necessary to refer 'to our opinion filed June 13, 1933, in Protest of Hamilton, 164 Okla. 116, 23 P. (2d) 198. In this ease the status and relationship of the parties, and the facts, are the same as in the Hamilton Case, except that case involved the levy for the fiscal year 1931-32 and was appealed from the Court of Tax Review, and this case involves levies for fiscal years subsequent to 1931-32 and is here on appeal from a judgment of the distriet.court granting a writ of mandamus.

After the Hamilton Case was appealed to this court, and before it was decided, all parties joined in a motion in the instant case wherein they agreed that the same facts and the same questions of law were involved in both cases, and wherein they asked permission of this court to submit this case on the briefs filed in the Hamilton Case.

Accordingly, on the authority of Protest of Hamilton, in which we held that the county superintendent’s order of annexation was void, the judgment of the trial court, granting the writ, is affirmed.

McNEILL, C. j., OSBORN, V. C. j., and BAYLESS and CORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1935 OK 322, 42 P.2d 809, 171 Okla. 225, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/means-v-consolidated-school-dist-no-1-okla-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack