Bryan v. Vernor
| Decision Date | 21 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 26039 |
| Parties | J. S. BRYAN & SONS v. VERNOR et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Statutes--Construction -- Legislative Intent.
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that the intention of the Legislature, when ascertained, must govern.
2. Intoxicating Liquors--Right of Tax Commission to Maintain Action to Enjoin Violation of Nonintoxicating Beverage Enforcement Law.
By virtue of authority conferred by section 13 of chapter 204, S. L. 1933, and section 14 of chapter 153, S. L. 1933, the Oklahoma Tax Commission may commence and maintain in the name of the state of Oklahoma action in the district courts of the state to prevent by injunction violation of the provisions of said chapters 153 and 204, supra.
Original proceeding by J. S. Bryan & Sons for writ of prohibition against Enloe V. Vernor, District Judge, et al. Writ denied.
Sid White and Solus S. Brooks for petitioner.
C. W. King, for Oklahoma Tax Commission.
A. L. Herr, for respondents.
¶1 This is a proceeding commenced in this court on November 30, 1934, by J. S. Bryan & Sons, a corporation, as petitioner, against Enloe V. Vernor, one of the judges of the district court of Muskogee county, Okla., and Melven Cornish, W. D. Humphrey, and John T. Bailey, members of and constituting the Oklahoma Tax Commission, as respondents.
¶2 The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the defendant district judge and the district court of Muskogee county from entertaining jurisdiction of an action commenced in that court in the name of the state of Oklahoma on the relation of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, as plaintiff, against the petitioner herein, in which action the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the further and continued violation of certain provisions of chapter 153, S. L. 1933, relating to intoxicating liquors, and of chapter 204, S. L. 1933, known as the nonintoxicating beverage enforcement law.
¶3 It is contended by the petitioner and conceded by the respondents that a state agency or board such as the Oklahoma Tax Commission has no authority to commence or maintain an action for injunctive relief in the name of the state unless expressly authorized by statute to do so.
¶4 It is asserted by the respondents and denied by the petitioner that the statutes of this state authorizing the Oklahoma Tax Commission to maintain injunction proceedings are broad enough to authorize the commencement and maintenance of the injunction suit involved in this action, upon the grounds set forth in plaintiff's petition as filed in the district court of Muskogee county. The determination of this suit requires a recognition of the alleged grounds for injunctive relief as stated in plaintiff's petition filed in the lower court, together with an examination and interpretation of the statutory provisions of this state authorizing the Oklahoma Tax Commission to commence and maintain injunction suits to obtain relief.
¶5 In the petition as filed in the trial court it is asserted, in substance: (1) That the defendant therein (petitioner in this court) has sold to certain named persons and firms beverages containing a greater alcoholic content than that permitted by law; (2) that the defendant has sold beverages not labeled as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission made pursuant thereto; (3) that the defendant has kept in his possession and displayed for sale and transported beverages containing an alcoholic content in excess of the maximum authorized by law; (4) that the defendant has kept, displayed, and transported such beverages without a label being placed thereon as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Tax Commission.
¶6 The various acts as charged constituted violations of section 2 of chapter 153, S. L. 1933, and of sections 10 and 16 of chapter 204, S. L. 1933. Under the laws of this state specific penalties are provided for the commission of the acts complained of++ The Oklahoma Tax Commission asserts that it is authorized to commence and maintain the action in the district court of Muskogee county under and by virtue of section 13 of chapter 204, supra, and especially relies upon subdivision (b) thereof. The section reads:
¶7 It also relies in part upon the provisions of section 14 of chapter 153, supra, which reads in part:
"In addition to the foregoing penalty, any person, firm or corporation, who violates any of the provisions of this act or who refuses to permit the examination of his books, records and files or who ignores or violates the rules and regulations of the Commission made pursuant to this act, or who violates any provisions of this act, shall be subject to an injunction forbidding such person from continuing to carry on such business until such time as he makes full and complete compliance with the provisions of this act; and a suit for Such injunction may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction either in the name of the state of Oklahoma upon the relation of the Oklahoma Tax Commission or by the county attorney of said county."
¶8 It is contended by the petitioner herein that in so far as the illegal acts of displaying, transportation, possession, and sale are concerned, the injunctive proceeding cannot be maintained until there has first been a conviction for the violation. Petitioner makes this assertion upon the theory that when an act constitutes a violation of the penal laws of the state or of the United States, the situation is covered by subdivision (c) of section 13,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.
...City Federation of Teachers, Local 2309 of American Federation of Teachers, Okl., 612 P.2d 719, 721 (1980); J.S. Bryan & Sons v. Vernor, 172 Okl. 382, 45 P.2d 468, 470 (1935).57 Hess, supra note 56 at 932.58 25 O.S.1981 § 1; Hess, supra note 56 at 932.59 Hess, supra note 56 at 932 n. 4. On ......
-
So-Lo Oil Co., Inc. v. Total Petroleum, Inc.
...P.2d 719, 721 (1980); Stemmons, Inc. v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation., Okl., 301 P.2d 212, 216 (1956); J.S. Bryan & Sons v. Vernor, 172 Okl. 382, 45 P.2d 468, 470 (1935).22 The Act is considered a below-cost-sales statute rather than price-fixing legislation. Glenn Smith Oil, supra n......
-
Sheridan Oil Co. v. Superior Court of Creek Cnty.
...58 Okla. 128, 159 P. 311; Grayson v. Thompson, 77 Okla. 77, 186 P. 236; Wagner v. Swan, 162 Okla. 95, 19 P.2d 555; Bryan & Son v. Vernor, 172 Okla. 382, 45 P.2d 468; Childers v. Paul, 177 Okla. 111, 57 P.2d 872. The purpose intended to be accomplished by the act also claims a degree of cons......
-
State ex rel. Dawson v. Dinwiddie
...58 Okla. 128, 159 P. 311; Grayson v. Thompson, 77 Okla. 77, 186 P. 236; Wagner v. Swan, 162 Okla. 95, 19 P.2d 555; Bryan & Son v. Vernor, 172 Okla. 382, 45 P.2d 468; Childers v. Paul, 177 Okla. 111, 57 P.2d 872. In ascertaining the legislative intent, the purpose intended to be accomplished......