Atoka County v. Oklahoma State Bank
| Decision Date | 19 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | 7893. |
| Citation | 161 P. 1087,62 Okla. 57,1916 OK 1036 |
| Parties | ATOKA COUNTY v. OKLAHOMA STATE BANK. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
At the time this cause arose, the sole method by which erroneous assessments of taxes might be corrected or values equalized was by proceeding before the board of equalization and appeal to the courts, the application to the county board of equalization to be made prior to the payment of taxes so assessed. Proceedings under section 14, c. 152, Session Laws of 1910-11, for refund of taxes erroneously assessed and paid, held void.
It is the duty of the tax assessor to correctly revise the assessment roll as per order of the county board of equalization before transmitting his abstract to the state board of equalization. Held, in the instant case that if he failed so to do, relief cannot be had from the board of county commissioners.
The board of county commissioners, as such, is not a board of equalization. While the county board of equalization has the same personnel as the board of county commissioners, yet the boards are differently organized, perform separate functions and are independent of each other.
Section 15, c. 152, Session Laws of 1910-11, prescribing the method of appeal from county boards of equalization, does not apply to appeals from boards of county commissioners.
Sections 1640 and 1641, Revised Laws 1910, prescribe the method of appeal from actions of the board of county commissioners at the time of the appeal herein.
An appeal taken from an action of the board of county commissioners, on behalf of the county, by the county attorney, under sections 1640 and 1641 of Revised Laws of 1910, upon the written demand of seven or more taxpayers of the county, said action relating to the interests or affairs of the county at large, or any portion thereof, held proper in this case.
If such appeal is taken by the county attorney, the matter is tried de novo in the district court, and it is not necessary, in the notice of appeal, to set forth specifically the grounds therefor.
The action of the board of county commissioners in assuming jurisdiction under the latter part of section 14, c. 152 Session Laws of 1910-11, and in determining that an erroneous assessment has been made, and ordering return or refund of portion of taxes collected is of a judicial nature and though void, may be appealed from to the district court.
Action of the district court in dismissing appeal of county attorney taken on behalf of the county upon the written demand of seven taxpayers from action of the board of county commissioners attempting to remit and refund portion of taxes paid by reason of alleged erroneous assessment, held to be error in this case.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Atoka County; J. H. Linebaugh, Judge.
Proceedings by the Oklahoma State Bank, a corporation, against Atoka County, to recover taxes. An appeal to the district court from the action of the board of county commissioners being dismissed, Atoka County brings error. Reversed and remanded.
J. W. Clark, Co. Atty., and M. C. Haile, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Atoka, for plaintiff in error.
R. M. Rainey, of Atoka, for defendant in error.
On the 28th day of January, 1915, the defendant in error, the Oklahoma State Bank, filed an affidavit before the board of county commissioners of Atoka county, Okl., claiming a refund of taxes alleged to be erroneously assessed for the year 1914, in the sum of $786.80. Said affidavit was filed under section 14, c. 152, Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1910-11, and contains the following allegations:
On the 2d day of February, 1915, the board of county commissioners of Atoka county, acting on such affidavit, ordered the county treasurer to remit and refund the sum of $786.80 to the Oklahoma State Bank as being erroneously assessed against said bank for the year 1914. The county attorney, acting under the provisions of sections 1640 and 1641, Revised Laws of Oklahoma of 1910, and upon the written demand of seven taxpayers of the county, appealed on behalf of Atoka county to the district court of said county, from such action of the board. On February 19, 1915, notice of appeal was served on a member of the board of county commissioners, and also on the president of the bank. The appeal was filed in the district court of Atoka county on February 20, 1915. The defendant in error, Oklahoma State Bank, on March 6, 1915, filed a motion in the district court to dismiss the appeal, setting up the following grounds, to wit: First, that the order attempted to be appealed from is not an appealable order; second, that the purported appeal was not taken in the manner or in the form provided by the laws of Oklahoma. Thereafter, and on the 9th day of June, 1915, the district court made an order dismissing the appeal, to which action of the court the county attorney excepted, and on the part of Atoka county has appealed to this court from the order of the court below dismissing the appeal.
At the time the proceedings were had in the court below, section 14, c. 152, Session Laws 1910-11, had not been construed by this court. The latter part of said section provides:
"If any such taxes, so erroneously assessed shall have been paid, the same shall be a valid charge against the county and shall be refunded by the board of county commissioners and the amount of such refunded taxes, which have been paid over to any municipality, or to the state, shall be deducted from the tax money due the state or such municipality at the next settlement."
In Johnson v. Grady County, 150 P. 497, the clause quoted is held to be unconstitutional.
At the time the claim of defendant in error was presented to the board of county commissioners, chapter 19, Session Laws 1916, had not been enacted, and it was the law of this state that the sole method by which erroneous assessments of taxes may be corrected or values equalized was by proceeding before the boards of equalization, and appeal therefrom to the courts, such proceedings to be instituted before the payment of the tax complained of. Section 7370, Revised Laws 1910; chapter 87, § 3, Session Laws 1910; Johnson v. Grady County, supra; Board of County Commissioners, Canadian County et al. v. Tinklepaugh et al., 152 P. 1119; Lusk et al. v. Porter, Co. Treas., 156 P. 224. Chapter 19, Session Laws 1916, purports to lodge certain authority concerning these matters in the board of county commissioners. Said act is not material to this case.
The claim of defendant in error arose over an alleged erroneous assessment for the year 1914. The same was not filed until the 28th day of January, 1915, long after the expiration of the time for making up the tax rolls. It is provided by our statutes that the county board of equalization shall sit on the first Monday in June of each year, and that the assessor shall correctly revise the assessment roll as per order of the county board of equalization; that not later than Saturday before the third Monday in June of each year he shall make an abstract of the assessment as revised by the county board of equalization and transmit the same to the state board of equalization, and that immediately after the receipt of the report from the state board of equalization the assessor shall proceed to revise his assessment rolls accordingly. Section 12, c. 152, Session Laws 1910-11.
From the record in this case it appears that the complaint was filed before the board of county commissioners by the defendant in error on January 28, 1915, after the completion of the tax rolls for year 1914, and after defendant in error had paid its taxes for the year 1914. It is held by Justice Sharp, of this court, in Lusk et al. v. Porter, County Treasurer, supra, that:
"Where the county commissioners, acting as a county board of equalization, as provided in section...
To continue reading
Request your trial