Pfrimmer v. Tidwell
| Decision Date | 18 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 35647,35647 |
| Citation | 252 P.2d 123,207 Okla. 605 |
| Parties | PFRIMMER v. TIDWELL et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where, upon appeal, a judgment, for a definite sum with interest from date of judgment, is approved on the merits but is reversed and remanded for the sole purpose of showing compliance with the provisions of the Intangible Personal Property Tax Law and, after remand, compliance therewith is shown, judgment for the same amount with interest from date of first judgment is proper.
2. Where the certificate of the treasurer substantially conforms to the provisions of the statute showing payment of intangible personal property tax on a liquidated claim, the question as to whether the proper amount was paid is not a proper issue in an action between the creditor and the debtor.
3. An action to recover upon a debt, if otherwise sufficient, is pending, although it may be subject to dismissal because of lack of allegations in petition of compliance with, or exemption from, provisions of Intangible Personal Property Tax Law. 68 O.S.1941 § 1515.
Porter & Porter, Muskogee, for plaintiff in error.
George W. Leopold, Muskogee, for defendants in error.
This case is now before this court a second time, the former appeal being Pfrimmer v. Tidwell and reported in 205 Okl. 262, 236 P.2d 978.
The plaintiffs below, Tidwell and Thomas, recovered judgment for the principal sum of $925 as brokers' commission in securing a purchaser for certain real estate belonging to the defendant, Pfrimmer. Upon petition for rehearing in this court, said defendant objected to affirmance of the judgment on the ground that plaintiffs had not shown compliance with the Intangible Personal Property Tax Laws, 68 O.S.1941 § 1501 et seq. Thereupon, this court ordered that,
'The judgment is vacated and the cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to hear and determine the questions as to whether or not there has been compliance with the Intangible Tax Law, 68 O.S.1941 § 1501 et seq., and if plaintiffs establish compliance, to render judgment for plaintiffs, otherwise to dismiss plaintiffs' action.'
After remand, the trial court set the matter for hearing, at which time, plaintiffs introduced in evidence the tax assessment records and the tax receipt records of the county, showing assessment and payment of intangible personal property tax. The evidence was admitted over defendant's objection that 'it was paid too late to come within the statute of limitations, and for the further reason from start to finish it's a jurisdictional question.' At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs in line with the mandate of this court. The defendant has appealed from that judgment, seeking relief therefrom upon three grounds, namely: that the statute of limitations was never tolled by the filing of the action because no allegation was made of compliance with the Intangible Personal Property Tax Law nor was any proof of the same offered until more than three years after the accrual of the cause of action; that the amount of tax and penalty paid by plaintiffs, as shown by the County Treasurer's tax receipt, was far less than the amount fixed by statute as actually due thereon; and, finally, that the trial court was in error in adjudging that plaintiffs' claim should bear interest from the date the first judgment was rendered, November 14, 1947. In determining the merit of these propositions, they will be considered in inverse order to that in which they have been presented.
As to the allowance of interest from November 14, 1947, the record in the first appeal, Pfrimmer v. Tidwell, supra, discloses that plaintiffs' claim and right to recover damages for breach of contract matured and vested on August 21, 1946 such fact being admitted in the brief of plaintiff in error, filed herein. By our opinion in that first appeal, the amount was determined to be liquidated and certain. Under the provisions of 23 O.S.1941 § 6 and the holding in the case of Abraham v. Stewart Bros. Cotton Co., 165 Okl. 73, 24 P.2d 992, the judgment of the trial court, as to interest on the claim here involved, was not erroneous.
The question of the correctness of the amount of tax paid is one that cannot be raised in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Britton v. Dowell, 5539.
...such compliance being a jurisdictional prerequisite to recovery upon a cause of action involving 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 belo......
-
Britton v. Dowell, Inc., 5401.
...the creditor from collecting his debt, but is exclusively for the protection of the public in the collection of revenue. Pfrimmer v. Tidwell, 207 Okl. 605, 252 P.2d 123. The dismissal contemplated by the statute is one without prejudice. Waters v. Rushing, 194 Okl. 306, 151 P.2d 423. Being ......