Holliman v. Basden

Decision Date25 June 1935
Docket Number25931.
Citation47 P.2d 138,173 Okla. 63,1935 OK 708
PartiesHOLLIMAN, County Treasurer, v. BASDEN.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel payment, upon the refusal by the treasurer or other proper disbursing officer, upon demand made for payment, where it is clearly the duty of such officer to pay the claim presented.

Appeal from District Court, Carter County; John B. Ogden, Judge.

Mandamus proceeding by E. L. Basden against Roy Holliman, Treasurer of Carter County. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.


Marvin Shilling, Co. Atty., of Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

Sigler & Jackson, of Ardmore, for defendant in error.


The only issue involved in this case is whether or not the plaintiff below, defendant in error herein, has a valid and subsisting claim against Carter county, Okl., and whether or not his claim can be enforced by a mandamus action.

The plaintiff in error contends that this is not a proper case for mandamus, for the reason that the rights of the defendant in error are not clear and that he has an adequate remedy at law, only having a claim against the county which should be submitted to a trial court in a law action.

The plaintiff in error further urges that the claim of the defendant in error is barred by the statute of limitations.

This suit originated over certain claims of persons who had purchased tax sale certificates on land. Certain persons had purchased these tax sale certificates, and the persons owning the land had redeemed the tax sale certificates, leaving the money in the hands of the county treasurer, and leaving the tax sale certificates outstanding.

The plaintiff below presented evidence that the tax sale certificates were owned by him, had never been redeemed, and that the certificates had been lost. The defendant below rather concedes the contention of the plaintiff below to be true in this regard.

Under the law of this state, section 12757, Statutes 1931, it is the duty of the county treasurer to hold money paid to him for the benefit of the holder of the tax sale certificate. The money in question could never become the property of the county. It was held in a separate fund, and never commingled with the county's funds, and it was clearly the duty of the county treasurer to pay said funds to the party who was entitled to receive the same. The record clearly discloses that the plaintiff below was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT