Protest of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

1930 OK 256, 288 P. 334, 143 Okla. 177, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 593
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided May 20, 1930·No. 20573·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

ANDREWS, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Tax Review denying certain protests of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company against certain tax levies of Garfield county, alleged to be illegal, excessive and void.

The protestant presents two assignments of error, and in the briefs specifically abandons the second Assignment of error.

The first assignment of error pertains to item 5 of the protest, and it is contended by the protestant that $13,070.17 surplus in the sinking fund was not deducted in determining the rate of levy for sinking fund purposes.

The county attorney of Garfield county and the city attorney of the city of Enid have filed a confession of error in which they say that the contention of protestant should be sustained.

Upon the confession of error, the judgment of the Court of Tax Review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court, with directions to refigure the rate of tax levy for the sinking fund of the city of Enid after deducting $13,070.17 surplus balance therein.

CLARK, HEFNER, CULLISON, and SWINDALL, JJ., concur. MASON, O. J., LESTER, Y. C. J., and HUNT and RILEY, JJ., absent.

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

Protest of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 1930 OK 256, 288 P. 334, 143 Okla. 177, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 593 (Okla. 1930).

1930 OK 256 (Protest of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kurn v. Helm
1938 OK 179 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Protest of St Louis-S. F. Ry. Co.
1933 OK 566 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Excise Board of Cheek County v. Gulf Pipe Line Co.
1931 OK 546 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co.
1930 OK 257 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Coal & Iron Nat. Bank of New York v. Suzuki
3 F.2d 764 (Second Circuit, 1924)