Seay v. Hawkins
| Decision Date | 20 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 7402.,7402. |
| Citation | 17 F.2d 710 |
| Parties | SEAY et al. v. HAWKINS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Lloyd J. Seay and W. F. Pardoe, both of Sapulpa, Okl. (Johnson & Miller, of Bristow, Okl., and Wayne H. Lasater, of Sapulpa, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.
Ernest B. Hughes, of Sapulpa, Okl. (John R. Miller, Earl Foster, and Edwin A. Ellinghausen, all of Sapulpa, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BOOTH, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, District Judge.
This was a suit brought by appellee, hereafter called plaintiff, against the appellants, who were respectively delinquent tax collector, sheriff, treasurer, and tax ferret, of Creek county, Okl., to enjoin them from selling under tax warrants for delinquent personal property taxes certain real estate owned by plaintiff in that county. Jurisdiction rested on diverse citizenship and the requisite amount involved.
The controlling facts disclosed by the evidence are as follows:
Section 9798, Comp. Okl. Stat. 1921, reads:
Plaintiff is a Creek freedman. He attained his majority January 20, 1924. Prior to that time, and subsequent to January 29, 1923, he was under the guardianship of L. W. McEwen, duly appointed by the county court of Creek county, Okl. Shortly prior to December 4, 1923, defendant Weakley, the tax ferret, proceeding under the statute above quoted, reported to the county treasurer that he had discovered that plaintiff had been the owner of certain personal property subject to taxation, consisting of cash, as shown by his guardian's reports for the years 1917 to 1922, inclusive; that the property had not been listed and assessed for those years. Thereupon the following notice was prepared and sent by registered mail:
and not assessed and extended on the tax rolls. Before assessing and extending same on tax rolls, the law provides that you shall have ten days' notice in which you may file with this office, in writing, under oath, any objections to such listing and assessing.
The original notice which was mailed was not produced in evidence, but a carbon copy was produced, and reason was shown for not producing the original. Across the face of this notice was written, "Entered 4/15/24." It did not appear clearly by the evidence whether the original had the words "Gdn. of Dewey Hawkins" after the name of L. W. McEwen, to whom the notice was addressed. The evidence showed that the original did not contain the entry, "Entered 4/15/24." The latter entry would naturally not be on the original, as will be explained in a moment.
The testimony showed without contradiction that the notice to McEwen was received by him on the 5th of December, 1923; that there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff on the 15th of December, 1923, the date fixed in the notice; that on April 15, 1924, the assessment was extended on the tax rolls, and the entry, "Entered 4/15/24," was made on the notice; and that proceedings were thereafter taken for collection, as in case of other taxes.
The evidence further showed that McEwen was the legally appointed guardian of plaintiff until the 20th of January, 1924, when plaintiff became of age. On the 21st of January, 1924, plaintiff and his wife executed a trust agreement, by the terms of which all of his property with the exception of household effects, automobile, and bank account was conveyed to William Alex, Porter Mann, and Sigrid Hawkins, the wife of plaintiff, as trustees, to hold and manage and pay over the income to plaintiff and others as set forth in the trust deed. The trustees were given absolute title, charge, and control of the property, with power to sell, lease, exchange, or incumber the same, to sue, compromise, or compound any suit or demand, and to do every act and thing necessary for the care, preservation, maintenance, use, and employment of the said estate.
On the trial all questions as to the validity of assessment and levy of taxes for the year 1923 were withdrawn from the case. The character of the proceedings before the county treasurer is not in dispute. In the case of Anderson v. Ritterbusch, 22 Okl. 761, 793, 98 P. 1002, 1015, the court said: "The proceeding before the treasurer is not an action at law, nor a suit in equity, but a summary proceeding of a quasi judicial nature." Both parties in the case at bar agree that the proceeding was in the nature of a judicial or quasi judicial proceeding, and we shall so treat it.
The position of the plaintiff in the trial court was that he had never received any notice of the proceedings which resulted in the assessment and levy of taxes against him; that he had been afforded no opportunity to appear in said proceedings and contest the same; that the proceedings were arbitrary and illegal, and amounted to depriving plaintiff of his property without due process of law. The court so found, and granted a permanent injunction. Appeal was taken.
The validity of the decree is challenged by appellants on various jurisdictional and procedural grounds:
(1) Inasmuch as plaintiff included in his complaint the 1923 taxes, but afterward on the trial withdrew these from consideration, that the jurisdictional amount was thereby reduced below $3,000, and consequently the court lost jurisdiction. Such would not be the result, if it was proper, in making up the jurisdictional amount, to include, as was done in the complaint, the incidental costs and penalties in connection with the taxes for the other years. That such costs and penalties are properly so included has been held by this court in the case of Glen Inv. Co. v. Romero, 254 F. 239.
(2) That plaintiff lacked capacity to bring the present suit; that up to January 20, 1924, he was under the guardianship of McEwen; that after January 21, 1924, his property was in the hands of trustees; and that the trustees were the only proper parties to bring such a suit. It is to be noted that the judgment entered by the county treasurer April 15, 1924, was for personal property taxes. It was not against the trustees, nor was it against the property conveyed to them. It was entered in a proceeding to which plaintiff, through his guardian, was a party, as we shall see later on. Furthermore, plaintiff had a direct beneficial interest in the property sought to be levied upon under the judgment. We think these facts made plaintiff such a party in interest as enabled him to maintain the suit. 30 Cyc. 45, 51.
He is the real party in interest, and as such he comes within the provision of the first clause of rule 37, New Equity Rules, "Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." A similar provision in the Codes is generally construed in the same way. Pomeroy's Code Rem. (4th Ed.) sec. 76. Whether the trustees might also have maintained suit to enjoin the sale of real estate in their hands we are not called upon to decide. It is clear that they alone could not have maintained suit to cancel the judgment against plaintiff, or to enjoin its enforcement, except as against the land held by them.
(3) That the suit is really one against the state, and cannot for that reason be maintained. The answer to this contention is that the suit is not one against the state, but against officers of the state, who, it is alleged, have proceeded contrary to law in levying upon plaintiff's property, and therefore are subject to suit the same as any other person. Such suits are frequently authorized and are not uncommon. See sections 405, 420, Comp. Okl. Stat., 1921. See, also, Bardrick v. Dillon, 7 Okl. 535, 54 P. 785; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Haworth, 48...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffith v. Bank of New York
...based on a release obtained by the trustee on threat of withholding the property. See also Park v. Park, 5 Cir., 123 F.2d 370; Seay v. Hawkins, 8 Cir., 17 F.2d 710; Jefferson v. Gypsy Oil Co., 8 Cir., 27 F.2d 304; Horton v. Stegmyer, 8 Cir., 175 F. 756, 758, 20 Ann.Cas. Though the court in ......
-
Dowell v. Dennis
...Natural Gas Co., 1994 OK 108, 898 P.2d 126. 16. Citing Hale v. Finch, 104 U.S. 261, 26 L.Ed. 732 (1881). 17. Citing Seay v. Hawkins, 17 F.2d 710 (C.C.A.8 Okla.1927) and Seekatz v. Brandenburg, 150 Okla. 53, 300 P. 678 (1931) for the holding that a suit to enjoin or set aside a judgment is a......
-
Breswick & Co. v. Briggs
...State Bank, 8 Cir., 120 F. 593, 61 L.R.A. 394; Joseph Reid Gas Engine Co. v. Exchange Nat. Bank, D.C.W.D.La., 281 F. 847; Seay v. Hawkins, 8 Cir., 17 F.2d 710, 713. It may also be thought that at this time an injunction is premature because there is no certainty that the State Court will ap......
- Kinney v. Chicago Great Western R. Co.