Lamb v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 13 July 1920 |
| Docket Number | 9176. |
| Parties | LAMB v. PALMER, COUNTY TREASURER. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The judgment of the trial court in an equity proceeding will not be set aside on appeal, unless said judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence.
The general rule is, where the statute does not in express terms declare an election void for violation of certain statutory provisions, the election will be sustained, and the violation of the statute will be treated as an irregularity going to the form, instead of to the substance, where, from all the facts, the court concludes that, in spite of the departure from statutory requirements, a full and fair ballot has been cast, and a true and fair return of the entire election has been canvassed and made.
Appeal from District Court, Grant County; W. M. Bowles, Judge.
Suit by M. G. Lamb against E. G. Palmer, as a County Treasurer of Grant County. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
W. H C. Taylor, of Medford, for plaintiff in error.
J. B Drennan, of Medford, for defendant in error.
M. G Lamb, a taxpayer of school district No. 90, Grant county Okl., brought suit against the county treasurer of Grant county to enjoin the treasurer from collecting certain school taxes levied against two farms of plaintiff located within said school district. It was alleged in the petition that the school district was comprised of the city of Pond Creek, a city of the first class, and certain territory adjacent thereto, and the officers of the school district made a levy of 5 mills for school purposes and called an election to vote an additional 7 mills. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin that portion of the levy that was voted by the district at the election called for the purpose of voting the additional levy, for the reason that the election was illegal, in that the election was called to be held and was held in the City Hall at Pond Creek, and not in the different wards within the city, and further that all electors voted at one precinct, and numerous persons voted who were not entitled to vote in that precinct. It was also alleged that over two-thirds of the votes cast at the election were illegal. It is further alleged that prior to the time of calling the election the board of education failed to publish a statement of the financial condition of the school district, as required by section 7378, Revised Laws 1910. There were several other irregularities complained of in the petition, but they are unnecessary to be referred to at this time.
The defendant filed an answer, which consisted of a general denial, and pleaded affirmatively that the officers had complied with the law in making the levy, and had called an election to vote an additional levy, and at said election there were 178 votes for the levy and 149 against the levy; the certificate of the election officials showing the return of the election being made a part of the answer. It was alleged that the proper estimate was published, showing the money necessary to be raised by taxes to defray the expenses of the school district, and a copy of the estimate published was attached to the answer, and it was further alleged that the levy was necessary for school purposes, that the election was called to be held at the City Hall, and notice of the same was published as provided by law, a copy of the notice being attached to the answer, and that all of the voters and electors of the district participated in the election, and no one was denied the right to vote, and that the majority of the electors had voted for the increased levy. The plaintiff replied, denying that all of the electors participated in the election, and further alleged that the item of $2,270 as interest for bonds was being collected twice. With the issues thus framed the case was tried to the court.
The plaintiff, Mr. Lamb, was the first witness produced, and testified that he owned certain property in the district, and that he had paid the first half of his taxes, and the treasurer informed him he would issue a warrant for the other half of the taxes, if not paid. Mr. Hutson was next produced as a witness for plaintiff, and testified that he was a member of the board of education, and that the election was held at the City Hall, and that he saw certain ladies around the election booth. Mr. Harvel, county clerk, was next produced as a witness for plaintiff who testified that he was county clerk of Grant county, and identified Exhibits A and B as the original estimate of the county excise board of Grant county for the years 1913-14...
To continue reading
Request your trial