C. D. Coggeshall & Co. v. Smiley, Co.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 20142 |
| Citation | 1929 OK 526,142 Okla. 8,285 P. 48 |
| Parties | C. D. COGGESHALL & CO. v. SMILEY, Co. Treas. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Taxation--Right to Pay Taxes Under Protest and Sue to Recover Illegal Taxes Though Payment Made After Statutory Date of Delinquency Where Officers Delay Certifying Rolls.
Sections 9719 and 9971, C. O. S. 1921, contemplate that county taxing officials will perform their duties in ample time so that a taxpayer may have the benefit of the provisions thereof. Taxpayers have a constitutional right to a reasonable time in which to pay taxes after payment thereof is possible and before the same becomes delinquent and to recover illegal taxes paid under protest. Where the county taxing officials have failed to certify the tax rolls to the county treasurer at the time and in the manner provided by the statute fixing the date of maturity and delinquency thereof, payment under protest may be made by a taxpayer and suit maintained by him to recover the alleged illegal tax, notwithstanding payment of the tax is made after the date of delinquency provided by the statute.
2. Same--Void Tax Levy to Pay Warrants Outstanding for Previous Fiscal Year.
The excise board is without authority of law to make an appropriation for the purpose of paying warrants outstanding for a previous fiscal year, and a tax levy based thereon is to that extent excessive and void.
3. Same--Levy by Excise Board--Deduction for "Surplus Balance of Revenue or Levy."
"Surplus balance of revenue or levy," as used in section 9699, C. O. S. 1921, means an amount derived from revenue or levy in excess of the legal indebtedness contracted during the same fiscal year.
4. Same.
A surplus balance of levy results where the amount of tax collected exceeds the amount of the valid contracts entered into.
5. Same.
A surplus balance of revenue results where the actual income from other sources exceeds that of the estimated income from other sources.
6. Same--Power of Excise Board to Make Supplemental Appropriations.
Under the provisions of section 9701, C. O. S. 1921, as a condition precedent to the making of a supplemental or additional appropriation, the income and revenue necessary therefor must have been accumulated or provided.
7. Same -- Municipal Corporations -- Transfer of Funds to Current Expense Fund.
A transfer of funds to the current expense fund must be of funds available for current expenses, and cannot be made from a fund derived from a levy in excess of a fund for current expenses.
8. Appeal and Error--Taxation--Scope of Review--Computations from Mass of Figures--Reversal and Remand for Determination of Facts.
This court is a court of error and will not undertake a computation from a mass of figures in order to determine whether or not a levy is excessive. Where the evidence is conflicting, it is the duty of the trial court to hear the facts, and where a trial court sustains a demurrer to such evidence, this court will reverse the order and remand the case for trial and a determination of the facts.
9. Counties--Tax Levy for Free Fair.
A levy may be made for free fair purposes under the provisions of chapter 159, S. L. 1925, in addition to the 4 mills limitation for current expenses.
10. Same--Appropriation for Roads and Bridges--Necessary Itemization.
Under the provisions of sections 9697 and 9698, C. O. S. 1921, the report of the board of county commissioners and the appropriations for "roads and bridges" must be itemized so as to show the location of each proposed bridge and the amount appropriated therefor, expressly stated; for maintenance and repair on bridges; for construction and maintenance of state roads; for opening and changing roads, and costs incident to condemnation proceedings to obtain right of way for roads; for machinery, tools and equipment for road work; and for equipment for working convicts on road work and compensation of guards therefor.
11. Municipal Corporations--Election to Authorized Tax Levy for Current Expense in Excess of 6 Mills--Statutes.
Where a city seeks a levy for current expenses in excess of 6 mills, an election may be held under the provisions of chapter 61, S. L. 1923-24, where the conditions provided by that act exist, and where those conditions do not exist, such an election may be held only under the provisions of sections 9709-9712, inclusive, C. O. S. 1921.
12. Same--Constitutional Limitations on Indebtedness.
The intent and plain effect of the provisions contained in sections 26 and 27, art. 10, of the Constitution, is to require municipalities to carry on their operations upon the cash or pay as you go plan. The revenues of each year must take care of the expenses of each year; and any liability sought to be incurred by contract expressed or implied, executed or executory, in excess of such current revenue, on hand or legally levied, is void, unless it be authorized by a vote of the people, and within the limitation therein required.
13. Same--Counties--Levy by Excise Board--Deduction for Funds on Hand.
An excise board is without authority of law to permit the deduction from the funds on hand at the close of the fiscal year of an amount reserved "for appropriation," and a levy based on appropriation made after such deduction is to that extent excessive and void.
14. Same--Deduction from Assets of "Reserve for Appropriation."
Where a financial statement and estimate shows a deduction from the assets of a "reserve for appropriation," and no evidence is offered to show the meaning of the term, this court will construe the language as used.
15. Same--Deduction for Balance on Hand for Liquidation of Unsettled Contracts.
The excise board is authorized to deduct from the balance on hand at the end of the fiscal year an amount sufficient to liquidate all valid unsettled contracts made during that fiscal year.
16. Same--Levies for Cemetery, Library, and Park Funds in Excess of Levy for Current Expense.
The levy for cemetery fund, under the provisions of chapter 8, S. L. 1927, the levy for library fund, under the provisions of chapter 7, S. L. 1927, and a levy for park fund, under the provision of chapter 69, S. L. 1927, may be in excess of the levy for current expenses.
17. Same--Fiscal Year Basis for All Financial Affairs.
All of our financial affairs are handled on a fiscal year basis. The requirements in sections 26 and 27, art. 10, of the Constitution of an "annual tax" does not change this to a calendar year basis.
18. Same--Tax Levy to Pay Interest on Bonded Indebtedness Maturing Subsequent to Fiscal Year Illegal.
An excise board is without authority of law to make an appropriation for the payment of interest on outstanding bonded indebtedness which matures subsequent to the fiscal year for which the appropriation is made.
19. Same--Computation of Annual Levy for Sinking Fund to Retire Bonds.
The bonded indebtedness authorized at an election held for that purpose is a single transaction, and the issuance of such bonds in installments maturing at different intervals does not change its character. The amount of the annual levy for the purpose of creating a sinking fund to retire such bonds is determined by dividing the entire amount of bonded indebtedness in equal installments.
20. Same--Number of Annual Levies Necessary.
The number of levies for sinking fund purposes depends upon the date of issuance and maturity of the bonds and is equal to the number of fiscal years intervening between the date of the issuance and the date of maturity of the bonds in which a tax levy may be made and the tax levy collected.
Error from District Court, Tulsa County; R. D. Hudson, Judge.
Action by C. D. Coggeshall & Company Against John L. Smiley, County Treasurer. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Brown & Stater and Burford, Miley, Hoffman & Burford, for plaintiff in error.
Byron Kirkpatrick, Co. Atty., Hugh Webster, Asst. Co. Atty., M. C. Spradling, City Atty., and Ed. O. Cassidy, for defendant in error.
¶1 This cause involves the last half of the tax for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1927. The first half thereof was involved in cause No. 20141, this day decided, 140 Okla. 242, 283 P. 788. The parties appear herein as they did in the trial court, and will be referred to herein as plaintiff and defendant, respectively.
¶2 Under date of September 16, 1929, an order of dismissal was entered in this cause on stipulation of the parties dismissing the appeal as to certain portions of the tax involved herein. The decision in this case is subject to that order.
¶3 It was stipulated and agreed that the decision in this cause shall apply with equal force and effect to the companion cases as listed in a stipulation entered into between the parties hereto.
¶4 The petition of the plaintiff was divided into ten causes of action. Each of these causes was considered separately in the briefs, and will be so considered in this opinion. In addition thereto, there was a general contention that the petition as a whole did not state a cause of action, for the reason that the tax sought to be recovered was not paid at the time and in the manner provided by law and before delinquency. That identical contention was made in cause No. 20141, supra, between the same parties, and it was therein held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clay v. Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County
... ... City of Stroud, 385 P.2d 428 (Okla.1963); State ex rel. Nesbitt v. District Court of Mayes County, 440 P.2d 700 (Okla.1968); and Smiley v. City of Tulsa, 159 Okla. 195, 14 P.2d 942 (1932). In Braine the plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus and damages resulting from discontinuance of ... C.D. Coggeshall & Co. v. Smiley, 142 Okla. 8, 285 P. 48, 51 (1929); In re Protest of Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 151 Okla. 43, 2 P.2d 279 (1931) ... 23 This ... ...
- Aaronson v. Smiley, Co.
- State ex rel. Bd. of Ed v. Morley
- Sinclair Prairie Pipe Line Co. v. Excise Bd. of Tulsa Cnty.