Edmonds v. White
| Decision Date | 20 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 33762,33762 |
| Citation | 203 Okla. 231,219 P.2d 1007 |
| Parties | EDMONDS v. WHITE. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In an action to recover upon a bill receivable or other credit subject to taxation under the Intangible Tax Law, plaintiff must allege and prove that such obligation has been listed and assessed for taxation and all taxes, interest and penalties paid. Failure to so allege and prove leaves the trial court without jurisdiction to render judgment thereon, and the action should be dismissed.
2. It is the duty of the owner of intangible personal property subject to taxation to list the same for taxation on or after January 1 and before May 1. If such property is properly listed and taxes are not payable when action is filed, owner may allege such facts in lieu of payment of taxes.
3. It is not necessary for a sum fixed or named in an obligation constituting intangible personal property to be due or delinquent to require the owner thereof to list the same for taxation and assessment.
4. In an action for monthly installments due on a lease contract, the execution of which is admitted, a motion for directed verdict will be sustained when the defendant offers no evidence to sustain his defense.
R. L. Christian, Frederick, for plaintiff in error.
Wilson & Wilson, Frederick, for defendant in error.
This is an action by R. F. White against E. L. Edmonds to recover the sum of $500 alleged to be due under a written rental contract between the parties, who will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
Plaintiff alleged that on February 3, 1945, he owned and operated a cafe in the town of Davidson, Oklahoma, and on that date entered into a contract with E. L. Edmonds whereby he sold him all his restaurant supplies and stock of beer on hand, and leased him all furniture, fixtures and equipment used in the cafe.
At that time, the plaintiff had a written contract with C. L. Corbin, a beer distributor at Lawton, Oklahoma, whereby Corbin had contracted with the plaintiff to furnish the cafe draught beer, when available, and a minimum of 200 cases of beer per month, 'as long as the amount is available to me.' With the written consent of C. L. Corbin, the plaintiff assigned this contract to the defendant. The lease between plaintiff and defendant was dated February 3, 1945, and was for a term of 17 months. The total consideration was $2125, of which $425 was paid in cash, leaving the balance payable at $100 per per month, beginning March 1, 1945.
Plaintiff alleged that he had complied with the terms of his contract, but that about February 1, 1946, the defendant had refused to make further payments, leaving a balance due under their contract of $500, for which he prayed judgment. The contract between plaintiff and defendant was attached to the petition, and contains the following pertinent paragraphs:
The contract between the plaintiff and C. L. Corbin was also attached to the petition. It was for a term of one year, with the option to renew for an additional year, being dated May 13, 1944. The following clause is endorsed thereon: 'I, C. L. Corbin, further agree to supply at regular wholesale price a minimum of 200 cases of beer per month as long as the amount is available to me.'
The defendant filed a general demurrer, which was overruled. Defendant answered, admitting the execution of the contract with the plaintiff and the transfer to him of the Corbin contract. He denied that either the plaintiff or Corbin had complied with their contracts, and alleged that Corbin had breached all of the material terms of his contract in that he failed and refused to deliver to defendant the merchandise provided for in his contract, upon which the contract between plaintiff and defendant depended, and that on account of such breach of contract the defendant had declared his contract null and void on February 1, 1946. He prayed that the plaintiff take nothing. Plaintiff replied that since the Corbin contract expired May 13, 1945, if the defendant had exercised his option to renew, such extension between the defendant and Corbin relieved the plaintiff from any obligation under the Corbin contract, and a breach thereof by Corbin during such extension period did not constitute a breach by the plaintiff or relieve the defendant under his contract with the plaintiff.
Defendant filed an unusual 'answer to plaintiff's reply', and admitted that he had extended the Corbin contract for a period of one year, but that such extension had been approved and acquiesced in by all parties, and that the plaintiff was still bound thereby.
At the conclusion of the evidence, plaintiff moved for a directed verdict, and his motion was sustained. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the sum of $500. Defendant's motion for new trial was overruled, and he has appealed.
In his assignments of error, the defendant has raised the question of the jurisdiction of the court to enter judgment for the plaintiff, because plaintiff had failed to comply with the provisions of the Intangible Tax Law by alleging and proving that the claim sued upon had been listed for assessment for taxation as intangible personal property. Sec. 1501(c), 68 O.S. 1941, defines intangible personal property subject to taxation, in part, as follows: 'Accounts and bills receivable, including brokerage accounts, and other credits, whether secured or unsecured.'
We have examined the contract sued upon. It is for a definite sum. It falls within the class of credits or bills receivable made taxable by the above section of our statutes. Sec. 1515, 68 O.S. 1941, provides that in a suit for the collection of any obligation constituting intangible personal property, the plaintiff must allege and prove that such property has been listed and assessed for taxation and that all taxes, interest and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Conway
...does. They are therefore not applicable. In this connection see Rogers v. Goodwin, 208 Okl. 110, 253 P.2d 844, 846, Edmonds v. White, 203 Okl. 231, 219 P.2d 1007, 1009, and Dunlap v. Spencer, 191 Okl. 557, 131 P.2d 994. Plaintiff's counsel call attention to the fact that this action was com......
-
Polk v. Bartlett
...was due. Judgment for plaintiff was reversed for failure to prove compliance with Intangible Tax Law. Opinion cites Edmonds v. White, 203 Okl. 231, 219 P.2d 1007; Mayor v. Bennett, 199 Okl. 579, 189 P.2d 186, and Mead v. Hellams, 200 Okl. 381, 194 P.2d 603. Opinion indicates, but does not d......
- STATE, COM'RS OF LAND OFFICE v. Bruce, 95,325.
-
Britton v. Dowell, 5539.
...a promissory note. Pfrimmer v. Tidwell, 207 Okl. 605, 252 P.2d 123; Pfrimmer v. Tidwell, 205 Okl. 262, 236 P.2d 978; Edmonds v. White, 203 Okl. 231, 219 P.2d 1007. The mandate "The judgment below is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to determine compliance......