Alford v. Bonaparte
| Decision Date | 17 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 17838 |
| Citation | 256 P. 935,125 Okla. 164,1927 OK 139 |
| Parties | ALFORD v. BONAPARTE, County Treasurer. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Counties--Validity of Tax Levies--Additional Legislative Apportionment of Levies in Excess of Maximum for Current Expense.
Where the Legislature has authorized an additional apportionment of tax levies for counties and other municipal subdivisions of the state in excess of the maximum amount allowed for current expense, as provided in section 9692, C. O. S. 1921, and such additional apportionment, together with the levies previously authorized, does not exceed the constitutional limitation, the decision of the Legislature in such matters is conclusive and binding upon the courts.
2. Same--Levy Authorized for Boys' and Girls' Homes.
Section 2, chapter 161, Session Laws 1925, authorizes a levy for boys' and girls' homes of not more than 1/2 mill in excess of the maximum amount allowed counties for current expenses under section 9692, C. O. S. 1921.
3. Same--Levy for Free Fairs.
Section 8, chapter 38 Session Laws 1925, authorizes a levy for free fairs of not more than 1/4 of one mill in excess of the maximum amount allowed counties for current expenses under section 9692, C. O. S. 1921.
4. Same--Levy for Tubercular Patients.
Section 8970, C. O. S. 1921, authorizes a levy for tubercular patients of not more than one mill in excess of the maximum amount allowed counties for current expenses under section 9692, C. O. S. 1921.
5. Same--Levy for Separate Schools.
Section 9698, C. O. S. 1921, authorizes a levy for the support of separate schools in excess of the maximum amount allowed counties for current expenses under section 9692, C. O. S. 1921.
6. Same--Levy for County Highway Fund.
Chapter 48, Session Laws 1923-24, amends section 10202, C. O. S. 1921, and authorizes the county excise boards of the state to levy an additional tax for the county highway fund, which excess, together with the maximum amount allowed counties for current expenses under section 9692, C. O. S. 1921, may not exceed 8 mills.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; William H. Zwick, Judge.
Action by J. M. Alford against E. B. Bonaparte, County Treasurer of Oklahoma County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Adelbert Brown and Gordon Stater, for plaintiff in error.
J. K. Wright, Co. Atty., and W. F. Smith, Asst. Co. Atty., for defendant in error.
¶1 The parties occupy the same position as in the district court. The plaintiff brought an action seeking to recover certain items of taxes levied against his property by the excise board of Oklahoma county. A demurrer was sustained in the district court to the plaintiff's first and second causes of action.
¶2 The plaintiff refused to plead further, and judgment for the defendant was entered by the district court, from which judgment the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
¶3 The plaintiff's first cause of action alleged that each of the following items was illegally levied against his property for the fiscal year 1925-26:
¶4 The plaintiff in his petition alleged that the entire levy was illegal for the reason that such levy was not made by the proper authorities.
¶5 We have examined the petition of the plaintiff on this point, together with the authorities submitted in plaintiff's brief, and find that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to said allegation in plaintiff's petition.
¶6 It clearly appears that the citizens' excise board was unconstitutionally created, It further appears, from the plaintiff's petition, that no attempt was ever made by the said board to function as an excise board.
¶7 The plaintiff in his petition alleged that a levy of .15 mills for boys' and girls' homes was illegal. The authority to make a levy for this purpose is to be found in section 2, chapter 161, Session Laws 1925, and reads as follows:
"For the purpose of purchasing sites, erecting or enlarging buildings, purchasing equipment, repairing or remodeling buildings or equipment and for the purpose of defraying the maintenance cost and current running expenses of such schools and homes, the excise board of each county hereby authorized to establish and conduct such schools and homes, is hereby authorized, in addition to all other levies, to make an annual levy upon all property in the county subject to taxation upon an ad valorem basis, of not to exceed one-half of one mill per annum, which is hereby declared not to be a current expense, and to be for a special purpose, known as county supervised school and home fund, in addition to the maximum levy for current expenses now provided by law."
¶8 The above provision authorizes a levy for the purpose specified therein and also provides that the same shall be in excess of the maximum levy for current expenses. We hold that the levy herein made, under said section, is legal.
¶9 The plaintiff also challenged the right of the excise board to make a levy of .122 mills for free fairs. The authority for this levy is to be found in section 8, chapter 38, Session Laws 1925, which reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Excise Bd. of Le Flore Cnty. v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., Case Number: 24698
...funds under section 10163, O. S. 1931. All. such levies are made upon all of the taxable property of the county. Alford v. Bonaparte, Co. Treas., 125 Okla. 164, 256 P. 935. ¶5 In St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. McIntosh, Co. Treas., 103 Okla. 246, 229 P. 1064, it was held that a coun......
-
Aaronson v. Smiley, Co.
...The plaintiff admits the validity of the levy of .25 mill under section 8, chap. 38, S. L. 1925, as construed in Alfred v. Bonaparte, Co. Treas., 125 Okla. 164, 256 P. 935, and questions the levy of .25 mill which was made under the authority of chapter 159, S. L. 1925. We passed on this co......
-
Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Wash. Cnty.
...by the later holdings of this court in the case of Franklin v. Ryan, 125 Okla. 161, 256 P. 932, above mentioned, and Alford v. Bonaparte, 125 Okla. 164, 256 P. 935; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bailey, 125 Okla. 183, 257 P. 784; and Prince v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 133 Okla. 90, 271 P. 245, a......
-
Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Prince, Co.
...by an election or vote of the people. ¶4 Plaintiff concedes that Franklin v. Ryan, 125 Okla. 161, 256 P. 932, followed in Alford v. Bonaparte, 125 Okla. 164, 256 P. 935, and St. L.--S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bailey, 125 Okla. 183, 257 P. 784, uphold the validity of the tax, but contends that chapter......