Lacy v. McCafferty
Decision Date | 02 June 1914 |
Docket Number | 3944. |
Citation | 215 F. 352 |
Parties | LACY v. McCAFFERTY, County Treasurer, et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
W. F Wilson, John Tomerlin, and E. E. Buckholts, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
D. K Pope, of Oklahoma City, Okl., and George F. Zimmerman, of Guthrie, Okl., for appellees.
Before HOOK, ADAMS, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This was a suit brought by the Oklahoma City National Bank by Don Lacy, its liquidating agent, to enjoin the treasurer and sheriff of Oklahoma county from taking the necessary steps for collecting certain taxes assessed against the bank by the assessor and board of equalization of Oklahoma City located in that county. The bill charges that notwithstanding the constitutional requirement of the state of Oklahoma that the property should be assessed for the purposes of taxation at its fair cash value the assessor and board of equalization of that city intentionally and systematically undervalued, for the purposes of taxation for the year 1910, a large amount of taxable property within the city such as merchandise, real estate, horses, cattle, credits, moneys, automobiles, etc assessing the same at not over 60 per cent. of their actual fair cash value while they valued and assessed the property of complainant and other national banks including their capital and surplus, at their full cash value; that the result of such action was to compel the complainant and other national banks to bear an unjust proportion of the burden of taxation for that year and to create an unjust and intentional discrimination against them in favor of other property; that the defendants, the county treasurer and sheriff, threaten to collect from the complainant the sum of $2,686.53 whereas if its property had been assessed as other property was the amount justly collectible from complainant would have been $1,611.92 only. This amount complainant alleges it is willing and ready to pay and it prays for an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the payment of any further sum. The answer of the defendants admits most of the allegations of the bill, but denies specifically that there was any intentional or systematic undervaluation of the large amount of taxable property in the city of Oklahoma City, as alleged by the complainant, and denies that it assessed the property of the complainant or other national bank at its full face value as so alleged. The replication being duly filed the cause was submitted to the court for final decree upon the proofs adduced.
The Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, section 5, art. 10, ordains that taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects. Section 8 of the same article ordains that all property which may be taxed ad valorem shall be assessed for taxation at its fair cash value, estimated at the price it would bring at a fair voluntary sale. Section 7580 of Snyder's Compiled Laws of Oklahoma, 1909, provides that every bank located with this state--
'whether such bank has been organized under the banking laws of this state, or of any other territory or state or of the United States, shall be assessed and taxed on the value of their shares of stock therein in the county, town, district, village or city, where such bank or banking association is located, and not elsewhere, * * * subject however, to the restriction that taxation of such shares shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon any other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of this state.' * * *
Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides among other things that:
'The Legislature of each state may determine and direct the manner and place of taxing all the shares of national banking associations located within the state, subject only to two restrictions, that the taxation shall not be at a greater rate than...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bunten v. Rock Springs Grazing Association
...for errors and inequalities in assessments arising out of the accidental omission of property from the tax rolls." In the case of Lacy v. McCafferty, 215 F. 352, the said: "From these various provisions of applicatory law it is manifest that if complainant's property and other property of i......
-
Certain-Teed Products Corporation v. Comly
...between overvaluation of property and fraudulent taxation. Overvaluation of itself does not furnish ground for equitable relief. Lacey v. McCafferty, 215 F. 352; ex rel. Greenwood v. Pearson, 46 Wyo. 307. The case of Board of Commissioners of Sweetwater County v. Bernardin, 74 F.2d 809, whi......
-
Mudge v. McDougal
... ... principle was reaffirmed by that court less than a year ago ... in Wells Fargo & Co. v. Johnson, 214 F. 180, 130 ... C.C.A. 528, and Lacy v. McCafferty, 215 F. 352, 354, ... 131 C.C.A. 494. This is the rule established in Cummings ... v. National Bank, 101 U.S. 153, 25 L.Ed. 903, and ... ...
-
United States v. Apple
... ... Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 92 F. 968, 35 ... C.C.A. 120; Arkansas Anthracite Coal & Land Co. v. Stokes ... (C.C.A.) 277 F. 625; Lacy ... [292 F. 938] ... v. McCafferty, 215 F. 352, 131 C.C.A. 494; Hathaway et ... al. v. Ford Motor Co. (C.C.A.) 264 F. 952; Hamilton ... & Sons ... ...