Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. Okla. Nat. Bank of Chickasha

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. Okla. Nat. Bank of Chickasha

62 P.2d 1225, 178 Okla. 262

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 1, 1936

DocketNo. 26013.

StatusPublished

This text of 62 P.2d 1225 (Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. Okla. Nat. Bank of Chickasha) 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. Okla. Nat. Bank of Chickasha, 62 P.2d 1225, 178 Okla. 262 (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, this day decided, 178 Okla. 260, 62 P. (2d) 1220. The pleadings of the parties, the judgment rendered, and the questions here presented are substantially 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 26011 is applicable 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, Y. C. X, and PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, J.T., concur. RILEY, BAYLESS, and BUSBY, 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, this day decided, 178 Okla. 260, 62 P. (2d) 1220. The pleadings of the parties, the judgment rendered, and the questions here presented are substantially 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 26011 is applicable 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, Y. C. X, and PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, J.T., concur. RILEY, BAYLESS, and BUSBY, J.T., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 P.2d 1225, 178 Okla. 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oklahoma-tax-comm-v-okla-nat-bank-of-chickasha-okla-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack