Board of Com'rs of Canadian County v. Tinklepaugh
| Decision Date | 16 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 5942. |
| Citation | 152 P. 1119,49 Okla. 440,1915 OK 142 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COM'RS OF CANADIAN COUNTY ET AL. v. TINKLEPAUGH ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1915.
Syllabus by the Court.
The action of the state board of equalization in equalizing correcting, and adjusting the various county assessments by increasing or decreasing the value of any or all of the different classes of real and personal property, as the same are provided for by the revenue laws of the state, in order to make their valuation conform to the fair cash value thereof, is valid.
Section 7370, Rev. Laws 1910 (chapter 87, § 3, p. 173, Sess. Laws 1910), provides a speedy and adequate remedy for inequality or injustice in assessments or equalizations; and is the sole method by which assessments or equalizations shall be corrected or taxes abated.
Error from District Court, Canadian County; John J. Carney, Judge.
Injunction by V. D. Tinklepaugh and others against the Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss.
S. T Roberson and R. B. Forrest, both of El Reno, for plaintiffs in error.
Blake & Boys, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
This action was instituted in the district court of Canadian county, to enjoin the collection of certain taxes for the year 1911. The action of the state board of equalization in equalizing the property of Canadian county with other counties of the state is specially complained of. Certain irregularities in the form of the assessments and tax rolls are urged; and the authority of the township and city assessors to assess the property involved is challenged.
It appears from the record that the assessments for the city of El Reno were made by one J. T. Parsons, who assumed to act as deputy assessor for said city; and there is no evidence as to who assessed the property outside the city of El Reno. At the time of the assessment for the year 1911, said Parsons presented to the defendants in error lists upon which to render a statement of all their taxable property, which lists were duly filled out by the taxpayers so far as their personal property was concerned, and delivered to said Parsons; and as to their real estate, it appears that said Parsons stated to the defendants in error that it would not be necessary for them to fill out the description of the real estate, but that he would get it from the records and return same. The township board met at the time and place fixed by law, and equalized assessments, and various other steps were taken in reference to the assessment of the property and the levy of taxes, substantially in the manner prescribed by law. The petition specifically alleges that all of the complaining taxpayers own property within the tax district of which complaint is made. A demurrer to the petition was presented and overruled, and a trial to the court was had, and an injunction issued, restraining the collection of the taxes.
The plaintiffs in error allege as grounds for reversal that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the petition; the court erred in rendering judgment for plaintiffs; and in overruling the motion for a new trial. We think these assignments must be sustained. Section 7370, Rev. Laws 1910 (chapter 87, § 3, Sess. Laws 1910) provides.
This section was the law at the time of the happening of the matters and things complained of, and provided a speedy and adequate remedy, by means of which defendants in error might have had relief from any inequality or injustice done them. This statute has been reviewed and upheld in a number of cases; and it has been decided that where the statute provides a mode by which appeals may be taken from the assessment or equalization of property, that remedy is exclusive, and equitable remedies cannot be resorted to. Williams, Co. Clerk, v. Garfield Exchange Bank of Enid, 38 Okl. 539, 134 P. 863; Asher State Bank v. Board of County Commissioners of Pottawatomie County, 31 Okl. 145, 120 P. 634; Carrico et al. v. Crocker et al., 38 Okl. 440, 133 P. 181; Hopper v. Oklahoma County, 43 Okl. 288, 143 P. 4, L. R. A. 1915B, 875; Thompson et al. v. Brady et al., 42 Okl. 807, 143 P. 6.
The validity of the action of the state board of equalization in the premise for the year in question has already been before this court, and we have determined that said board had the authority to equalize the various county assessments in the manner that it did. In re Appeal of McNeal, 35 Okl. 17, 128 P. 285.
The various objections to the form of the assessment lists and of the tax rolls, in our judgment, are without merit, and we pass them without any further consideration. Certainly they cannot be availed of in an injunction proceeding in the face of the statute above referred to.
It is urged with a great deal of vigor that the assessments in the city of El Reno were made by a person without authority. The lists of personal property were made out by the property owners and delivered to the said Parsons, to be returned and filed by him, and instead of making out the lists of real estate when forms for that purpose were presented to them the taxpayers permitted the said Parsons to procure the description and value from the records of previous assessments, and permitted said lists and valuations so...
To continue reading
Request your trial