Cortez Oil Co. v. State

• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WELCH, Justice.
• Citation: Cortez Oil Co. v. State, 65 P.2d 171, 1937 OK 91, 179 Okla. 195 (Okla. 1937)
• Decision Date: 09 February 1937
• Docket Number: 23027.
• Parties: CORTEZ OIL CO. v. STATE.

65 P.2d 171

179 Okla. 195, 1937 OK 91

CORTEZ OIL CO. v. STATE.

No. 23027.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

February 9, 1937

Syllabus by the Court.

In a proceeding to assess omitted property for ad valorem taxation pursuant to the provisions of sections 12346-12350, O.S.1931 when the cause on appeal is tried in the county court and the evidence is not sufficient to show the existence and ownership of the property sought to be assessed against the taxpayer and the value thereof in the year involved, it is error to order and decree an assessment.

Appeal from Creek County Court; Carl J. Hughes, Judge.

Proceeding by the State to assess alleged omitted property of the Cortez Oil Company for the year 1915 in Creek County, wherein an appeal was taken from the County Treasurer to the County Court. From a judgment ordering further assessments defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

John M Chick, of Tulsa, and Charles Hill Johns, of Oklahoma City for plaintiff in error.

Hughes & Ellinghausen, of Sapulpa, for defendant in error.

WELCH Justice.

This cause arose out of a proceeding in 1930 by the tax ferret of Creek county under sections 12346 to 12350, O.S. 1931, to assess for ad valorem taxation certain alleged omitted property of the defendant, Cortez Oil Company, for the year 1915.

After hearing the matter, the county treasurer ordered an additional assessment against the defendant, Cortez Oil Company, and, upon appeal to the county court, a de novo trial judgment was there rendered ordering further assessments against the defendant for the year 1915.

The defendant, Cortez Oil Company, here urges that such judgment was not supported by the evidence, and we consider that assignment to present controlling merit.

It was the theory of the plaintiff that in 1915 the defendant owned certain machinery, apparatus, and appliances which were omitted from taxation for the year 1915. Upon general denial and proper contest of the matter by the defendant, the burden was upon the plaintiff in the trial to prove by competent evidence the ownership of the property and its value in 1915, as well as to show that the property was taxable and was omitted from taxation. In re Daniels' Omitted Property, 108 Okl. 195, 235 P. 543; R. C. Jones Cotton Co. v. State, 139 Okl. 212, 282 P. 622; Wilson v. State, 169 Okl. 149, 36 P.2d 292; and Carroll, Brough & Robinson v. State, 174 Okl. 57, 49 P.2d 708.

As touching the question of the ownership of the property and its value in 1915, the plaintiff offered no evidence whatever except a certain assessment list subscribed and sworn to before a notary public by an individual in 1915, who stated that he was the president of the defendant company, and listed various and sundry items of personal property, including livestock, machinery, apparatus, appliances, and crude oil as being owned by the company and as having certain values.

It was the theory of the plaintiff that since the total of the valuations stated in the assessment list was in excess of the amount extended on the tax rolls against the defendant for the year 1915, that as a matter of fact the difference would constitute omitted taxable personal property of that valuation.

While the plaintiff's theory may in fact be true, the county court was without authority to render judgment sustaining such contention without competent evidence as to the ownership and value of the property. The defendant objected to the introduction in evidence of the assessment list signed by Mr. King in 1915, and thereafter demurred to the plaintiff's evidence and here urges insufficiency of the evidence.

It has been heretofore held that assessment lists, though filed with the county assessor, are not admissible in evidence in general litigation to prove the value of property therein described. Bartlesville Interurban Ry. Co. v. Quaid, 51 Okl. 166, 151 P. 891, L.R.A.1918A, 653; Winemiller v. Lorton, 121 Okl. 99, 249 P. 406; and Champlin Refining Company v. Donnell, 173 Okl. 527, 49 P.2d 208, 103 A.L.R. 157.

The exact question whether this assessment list was admissible in evidence is not discussed in the briefs, and we do not decide it.

In the proceeding in 1930, it seems clear that it was the duty of plaintiff to prove the ownership and value of this property in 1915 as well as proving that the property sought to be assessed was omitted from taxation in 1915.

Assuming, without deciding it, that the assessment list was admissible in evidence, still we must sustain defendant's contention that the judgment of the trial court is not sustained by the evidence.

The evidence discloses that the 1915 assessment as then made against the defendant by the county assessor was less in dollars and cents than the aggregate valuation of the items of property stated in the assessment list. The trial court seems to have assumed that this resulted from the error of the county assessor in omitting certain specific items...