Broadwell v. Bd. of Com'Rs of Bryan Cnty.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 10447 |
| Citation | 1922 OK 150,211 P. 1040,88 Okla. 147 |
| Parties | BROADWELL v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF BRYAN COUNTY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Counties--Allowance of Claims by Commissioners--Time to Present.
By virtue of section 1570, Rev. Laws 1910, the county commissioners have no authority to allow an account or claim against the county unless the same is presented to the commissioners within two years after the same accrued, subject, however, to the exception contained in said section.
2. Same--Appeals from Board--Appellate Jurisdiction.
Upon an appeal from the board of county commissioners, the district court takes appellate jurisdiction only, same being confined to the jurisdiction the board had, and none other, to an inquiry, de novo, as to the very matter upon which the board was called upon to act. Such appeal cannot be converted into an action at law or equity so as to enlarge the jurisdiction beyond that of the inferior tribunal.
3. Limitation of Actions -- "Accrual of Cause of Action."
The general rule is, the statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action accrues, and the true test to determine when the cause of action accrues is to ascertain the time when the plaintiff could first maintain his action to a successful result.
4. Same--Claims Against County--Bar of Statute.
The plaintiff filed a claim with the board of county commissioners for refund of certain money alleged to have been paid as taxes by different members of the Chickasaw and Choctaw Tribes of Indians upon certain lands that were exempt from taxation. Said claims had been assigned to plaintiff, and disclosed that the payments were made in the years 1909, 1910, 1911, and prior to January 1, 1912. The claim or account was not presented to the county commissioners until the 24th day of March, 1914. Held, under and by virtue of section 1570, Rev. Laws 1910, said claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the commissioners had no authority to allow the same. Held, further, the cause of action accrued upon each claim immediately after payment of the same to the county treasurer.
Error from District Court, Bryan County; C. E. Dudley, Judge.
Claim by George R. Broadwell disallowed by the Board of Commissioners of Bryan County, and he appealed to District Court. Appeal dismissed, and claimant brings error. Affirmed.
Geo. P. Glaze, for plaintiff in error.
Victor C. Phillips, Co. Atty., and W. L. Boner, Asst. Co. Atty., for defendant in error.
¶1 This proceeding was commenced by the plaintiff in error by filing with the board of county commissioners of Bryan county a claim in the nature of a petition duly sworn to, to recover from the county certain money, alleged to have been paid by different members of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes of Indians as taxes upon certain lands belonging to the various Indians, which lands were not subject to taxation. All of said claims had been assigned to the plaintiff. There were 1,462 separate claims, amounting to the total sum of $ 48,604.07. Plaintiff also sought interest on the claim of $ 3,440.17 from January 1, 1909, and on $ 18,100.73 from January 1, 1910, and on $ 13,672.30 from January 1, 1911, and on $ 12,390.83 from January 1, 1912. These different items were all filed as one claim on the 27th day of March, 1914. On the 7th day of April, 1914, the board of county commissioners disallowed said claim. The plaintiff served notice as provided by law and took an appeal from the action of the board of county commissioners to the district court of Bryan county. In the district court a demurrer was filed to the petition or claim by the county, which was overruled by the court. Thereafter an answer was filed, and amended answer was filed. Thereafter the court dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, which was granted. After the court granted a new trial and reinstated the appeal, the plaintiff filed an amendment to the petition. The defendant then filed a demurrer to the amended petition, and one of the grounds relied upon was that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The demurrer was sustained and the court dismissed the appeal. From the order dismissing the appeal the plaintiff has appealed to this court. The case is presented here upon two questions: First, whether the court erred in dismissing the appeal for the reason the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The claim filed with the county commissioners showed upon its face that all the items in said claim were due and payable more than two years prior to filing the claim with the county. Some of the claims had been due more than five years. Section 1570, Rev. Laws 1910, provides:
"No account against the county shall be allowed unless presented within two years after the same accrued," etc.
¶2 Plaintiff in error contends this statute has no application, for the reason this is not an account within the meaning of the above section of the statute, and in support of that contention cites the case of Comm'rs of Saline Co. v. Young, 18 Kan. 440. In the Kansas case the party held a tax-sale certificate, and the statute of that state provided that upon return of the tax certificate, where it was discovered that the land upon which the tax certificate had been issued should not have been sold for taxes, the county treasurer should pay to the holder of the certificate the amount thereof and interest. It can be readily seen under the statute there was nothing for the county commissioners to do with the tax certificate, and mandamus would be a proper remedy to compel the county treasurer to pay the certificate. The Kansas case originated by filing suit against the county in the district court. In that case it was not necessary for the commissioners to make an order for the county treasurer to pay the certificate, but, as stated by the court, the holder of the tax certificate was entitled to his money from the county treasurer when he returned the certificate. The court, in discussing the question of limitations and in referring to the statute, which is the same as section 1570, stated:
¶3 The plaintiff in this case comes squarely within the rule above announced, because it was necessary for him to have some order on the county treasurer that would authorize the payment of his claim, or some judgment of a court; he proceeded before the county commissioners, and it was necessary for his account to be allowed by the commissioners and for him to obtain an order on the county treasurer for the amount of his claim. It was this kind of a claim that the Kansas court said the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boling v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., Case Number: 23419
...accrues is to ascertain the time when the plaintiff could first maintain his action to a successful result." Broadwell v. Board Co. Com'rs, Bryan Co., 88 Okla. 147, 211 P. 1040; Cornelius et al. v. Standard Royalties Co., 131 Okla. 112, 267 P. 838; Jeffers & Hackett v. Johnson, 21 N.J. Law,......
-
Von Schrader v. Bd. of Com'Rs of Roger Mills Cnty.
...plaintiff as soon as the act became effective, and it was then that the statute of limitations began to run. Broadwell v. Board of County Commissioners, 88 Okla. 147, 211 P. 1040; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Watkins, 177 Okla. 30, 57 P.2d 622; In re Mosher, 24 Okla. 61, 102 P. 705; Young v. B......
-
Griffin v. Hannan
...defendant. As authority for his position plaintiff relies upon Patterson v. Bonner, 73 Okla. 224, 175 P. 826, and Broadwell v. Board of County Com'rs, 88 Okla. 147, 211 P. 1040, announcing the general rule that the statute begins to run only when a cause of action accrues, the testimony bei......
-
Meriwether v. Bd. of Com'Rs of Comanche Cnty.
...pending. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Eldredge, County Treas., 67 Okla. 110, 169 P. 1071. The case of Broadwell v. Board of Com'rs of Bryan County, 88 Okla. 147, 211 P. 1040, is cited in support of the judgment. It is there said: "The plaintiff filed a claim with the board of county comm......