Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. First Nat. Bk. Mangum

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. First Nat. Bk. Mangum

1936 OK 750, 62 P.2d 1224, 178 Okla. 262, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 565

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 1, 1936

DocketNo. 26012.

StatusPublished

This text of 1936 OK 750 (Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. First Nat. Bk. Mangum) 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

Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. First Nat. Bk. Mangum, 1936 OK 750, 62 P.2d 1224, 178 Okla. 262, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 565 (Okla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

WELCH, J.

This case was argued and submitted with cause No. 26011, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. First National Bank of Oklahoma City, (his day decided, 178 Okla. 260, 62 P. (2d) 1220. The. pleadings of the parties, the judgment rendered, and the questions here presented are substantiaUy the same. The Tax Commission’s brief in cause No. 26011 is by specific request treated as its brief in this case.

The reasoning of the. opinion in cause No. 20011 is app’icable here, and the conclusion there- is controlling here. We, therefore, adopt the syllabus of that, opinion, -and upon that authority the judgment here considered is modified to exclude any judgment for costs, and in all other respects is affirmed.

McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. O. J., and PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ.. concur. RTLEY, BA.YLESS, and BUSiBY, J.T., absent.

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

WELCH, J.

This case was argued and submitted with cause No. 26011, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. First National Bank of Oklahoma City, (his day decided, 178 Okla. 260, 62 P. (2d) 1220. The. pleadings of the parties, the judgment rendered, and the questions here presented are substantiaUy the same. The Tax Commission’s brief in cause No. 26011 is by specific request treated as its brief in this case.

The reasoning of the. opinion in cause No. 20011 is app’icable here, and the conclusion there- is controlling here. We, therefore, adopt the syllabus of that, opinion, -and upon that authority the judgment here considered is modified to exclude any judgment for costs, and in all other respects is affirmed.

McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. O. J., and PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ.. concur. RTLEY, BA.YLESS, and BUSiBY, J.T., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1936 OK 750, 62 P.2d 1224, 178 Okla. 262, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oklahoma-tax-comm-v-first-nat-bk-mangum-okla-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack