In re Assessment of First Nat. Bank of El Reno

• Decision Date: 31 July 1917
• Docket Number: 7538.
• Citation: 166 P. 883,64 Okla. 208,1917 OK 392
• Parties: IN RE ASSESSMENT OF FIRST NAT. BANK OF EL RENO.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

166 P. 883

64 Okla. 208, 1917 OK 392

IN RE ASSESSMENT OF FIRST NAT. BANK OF EL RENO.

No. 7538.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

July 31, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

A proceeding instituted by a national bank before a board of county commissioners pursuant to section 14, chapter 152, of the act of March 25, 1911 (Sess. Laws 1910-11, pp. 335, 336) for the purpose of obtaining a reduction of the assessed value of the property of the bank, or of the shareholders therein, on account of state funding bonds owned by such bank and claimed to be exempt from taxation, not being maintainable because of the repugnancy of the section of the act to section 57, article 5, of the Constitution, cannot be sustained under sections 7353 and 7354, Revised Laws 1910 conferring upon boards of county commissioners power to issue a certificate of error to the county treasurer, when it is found that property has been assessed more than once for the taxes of the same year, or that property has been assessed for the taxes of a year to which the same is not subject.

A board of county commissioners can exercise only such powers as are conferred upon it by the organic or statutory laws of the state, or such as may arise by necessary implication from an express grant of power.

Sections 7353 and 7354, Revised Laws 1910, do not confer upon boards of county commissioners, in a proceeding instituted before such board, the power to adjudicate and determine the right of a taxpayer to a reduction of the assessed value of its property for the taxes of a year to which the same is subject, on account of its ownership of state bonds claimed to be exempt from taxation.

Error from District Court, Canadian County; John W. Hayson, Judge.

In the matter of the assessment of the First National Bank of El Reno. Petition by the bank for reduction of its assessment was denied, and on appeal to the District Court the assessment was reduced, whereupon the Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County brings error. Reversed.

S. T Roberson, Co. Atty., and E. F. Maley, Asst. Co. Atty., both of El Reno, for plaintiff in error.

Fogg & Bennett, of El Reno (Babcock & Trevathan, of El Reno, and Burwell, Crockett & Johnson and Asp, Snyder, Owen & Lybrand all of Oklahoma City, of counsel), for defendant in error.

SHARP C.J.

In its return to the county assessor for taxes for the year 1914 the First National Bank of El Reno, being the owner of state funding bonds in the sum of $12,600, deducted, in addition to the assessed value of its real estate, a sum equal to the face value of the bonds, on account of the claim that such bonds were by law exempt from taxation. Acting under instruction of the state board of equalization, the county assessor of Canadian county, on July 3, 1914, added to the assessed valuation of the property of the bank the face value of the bonds, and on the same day notified the bank of the action of the state board in raising the bank's assessment, and of his compliance with the board's instruction. On December 10th next thereafter the bank filed with the board of county commissioners its petition, charging that the bonds were exempt from taxation and that its assessment should be reduced in a sum corresponding to the face value thereof. This the board of county commissioners, on February 6, 1915, refused to do. Thereupon the bank prosecuted its appeal to the district court of Canadian county, where, on the 24th of April, 1915, judgment was entered directing that the bank's assessment be corrected by deducting therefrom "said state of Oklahoma 4 1/2 per cent. funding bonds of 1913 in the amount of $12,600."

The proceedings instituted by the bank before the board of county commissioners was obviously brought under authority of section 14 of chapter 152, being an act of the Legislature approved March 25, 1911 (Sess. Laws 1911, pp. 331-337). June 15, 1915, the opinion in Johnson v. Grady County, 150 P. 497, was handed down, in which it was held that the latter part of section 14 of said act providing for the refund by the board of county commissioners of taxes erroneously assessed and collected was repugnant to section 57, art. 5, of the Constitution, in that the title of the act did not disclose that there was contained in the act a provision for the refund of taxes erroneously assessed and paid. In the presentation of the case at bar the county commissioners urge that section 14 in its entirety must fail on account of its repugnancy to the preceding section and article of the Constitution. On the other hand, the bank contends that, notwithstanding the opinion of the court in Johnson v. Grady County (followed in Atoka County v Oklahoma State Bank, 161 P. 1087, and Smith et al. v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin County, 162 P. 463), in so far as section 14 authorizes the board of county commissioners to hear and determine allegations of erroneous assessment, or that property exempt from taxation has been assessed, and giving such board the power upon compliance with the statute to correct such assessment, the section is constitutional. That the bank, in seeking a reduction on its assessment on account of its ownership of state funding bonds, proceeded under the authority of section 14 of the act of March 25, 1911, is not only obvious from the allegations of its petition, as well as the form of relief invoked, but by the position originally assumed in this court. This much must be admitted. Some eight months after the brief of counsel for the bank had been filed, the opinion in Re Hickman, 162 P. 176, was handed down, in which, in effect, the position of counsel for the county commissioners in the case under consideration was sustained. The effect of that opinion was to strike down the very portion of section 14 upon which the bank instituted its proceedings before the board of county commissioners. Since the going down of the opinion in the Hickman Case, the bank in a supplemental brief says that, notwithstanding the position theretofore occupied by it, section 14 of the 1911 statute furnished but a cumulative remedy to that already provided by sections 7353 and 7354, Revised Laws 1910, by which the board of county commissioners was authorized to correct assessment or tax rolls under certain circumstances, and that the board having jurisdiction to...