Prince v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 May 1925
• Docket Number: 15159.
• Citation: Prince v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co., 237 P. 106, 110 Okla. 141, 1925 OK 427 (Okla. 1925)
• Parties: PRINCE, County Treasurer, v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. PRINCE, County Treasurer.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

237 P. 106

110 Okla. 141, 1925 OK 427

PRINCE, County Treasurer, v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO.

ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. PRINCE, County Treasurer.

No. 15159.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

May 26, 1925

Syllabus by the Court.

Section 9696, Comp. Okl. St. 1921, provides: "The annual rate of levy of five (5) mills for school purposes may be increased by any school district by an amount not to exceed ten (10) mills on the dollar valuation on condition that a majority of the taxpaying voters thereof voting thereon shall vote for such additional levy, and by their majority vote approve an estimate to be submitted to the county excise board.The election so held for such purpose shall be by yea and nay vote, and the additional levy, so made shall be certified to the county excise board along with said estimate."

Held that, where a certificate of election showing on its face "that an increased levy of 'sufficient to cover needs' mills, over and above the regular 5 mills authorized to be levied for school purposes, was voted," etc., was not a compliance with the statute, and the election held on the question as presented, failing to specify the "rate" of the additional levy, was void, and the taxes levied and assessed against property in such school district, under and by virtue of such void election, are illegal, and, when such tax is paid under protest, the sum so paid may be recovered by appropriate action filed for such purpose.

Where the statute requires a series of acts to be performed before the owners of the property are properly chargeable with the tax, such acts are conditions precedent to the exercise of the power to levy the tax, and all the requirements of the statute must be complied with, or that tax cannot be collected.

Executive and ministerial officials enforce the tax laws, but, in doing so, they must keep strictly within the authority those laws confer.They neither have nor can have a roving commission to levy and collect taxes from the people without authority of law, but they can only do so in the manner prescribed by the law, which would be the governing rule for their conduct in levying taxes in all cases.

Where the district court has determined the validity of the warrant indebtedness of a school district, under the refunding proceedings provided for by the law, and has decreed that the funding bonds sought to be issued are valid and in strict conformity with said funding law, and no objections or exceptions are made to such determination and decree, and no appeal taken therefrom, the decree and judgment is final and conclusive.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

"Levying a tax" usually means fixing a rate at which property is to be taxed.

Under Comp. St. 1921, § 9707, requiring excise board, on determining that excess of school expenses over limitation prescribed by statute is reasonable, to give notice by publication of election to submit to electors question of making increased levy, and requiring provisions of act and amount of proposed levy to be printed on ballot, printed form of financial statement, and estimated needs containing printed form of "Order of Excise Boards for Election," with blank spaces for insertion of assessed valuation, levy, excess levy, and day and date on which election should be held, was not compliance therewith, and excess levy voted at election was void.

Commissioner's Opinion, Division No. 3.

Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; Hal Johnson, Judge.

Action by the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company against Paul Prince, County Treasurer of Lincoln County, to recover taxes alleged to have been illegally levied and paid under protest.The first count was abandoned.From a judgment for plaintiff on the second count or cause of action, defendant appeals and, from judgment for defendant on the third cause of action, plaintiff appeals, and files his cross-bill of exceptions.Affirmed on both appeals.

Paul Prince, Co. Atty., of Chandler, for plaintiff in error.

W. F Evans, of St. Louis, Mo., and Stuart, Sharp & Cruce, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

RUTH C.

This action was brought by the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company against Paul Prince, as county treasurer of Lincoln county, Okl.The petition alleges three causes of action, and, as the first cause of action was abandoned, there remain but the second and third causes of action to be determined by this court, and they will be considered in their order.The county attorney will be designated as plaintiff. and the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company as defendant.

The defendant for its second cause of action alleges that a 12.1-mill levy was made against its property in Lincoln county for the year 1922, for the benefit of school district No. 44, and the amount of taxes assessed against the defendant's property on account of said levy was $450.68, that the maximum levy that could lawfully have been made for the benefit of such taxing jurisdiction for current expenses, without the vote of the qualified electors, was 5 mills, and that the electors did not authorize any increase over the 5-mill levy, and that the levy was illegal and void to the extent of 7.1 mills, and prays judgment for the excess.

A "stipulation as to facts" was signed by counsel for plaintiff and defendant, wherein it was agreed that, as to the second cause of action, the assessed valuation of defendant's property in school district No. 44, in Lincoln county, for the year 1922, was $37,246, that a levy of 12.1 mills was made against the defendant for the year 1922 for school purposes in said school district, and the amount of taxes was $450.68, and that the 7.1-mill levy, contested as being illegal, produced $264.44, and that the taxes were paid under protest, and suit was filed as provided by law.

Judgment was rendered by the court in favor of the defendant in the sum of $264.44, to which judgment the plaintiff duly excepted and brought this cause here regularly for review.

Section 9692, Comp. Okl. St. 1921, provides:

"In all counties, the total levy for current exthe following: * * * School district levy for penses in each county, * * * township or school district shall not exceed in any one year the support of common schools, not more than five mills."

Provision was made, however, for increasing this levy by an amount not exceeding 10 mills, and section 9696,C. O. S. 1921, provides:

"The annual rate of levy of five (5) mills for school purposes may be increased by any school district by an amount not to exceed ten (10) mills on the dollar valuation on condition that a majority of the taxpaying voters thereof voting thereon shall vote for such additional levy, and by their majority vote approve an estimate to be submitted to the county excise board.The election so held for such purpose shall be by yea and nay vote, and the additional levy, so made shall be certified to the county excise board along with said estimate.The excise board shall have no power or authority to reduce the levy, so voted, and made at the school district meeting, neither shall the said board have the authority to reduce the estimate, unless the rate of levy so voted, shall be insufficient to raise the amount thereof, in which case the board shall reduce and adjust the items of the estimate to an amount within the limits of the levy."

Defendant assumes the position that the 12.1-mill levy was duly approved by a majority of the taxpaying voters, voting at the annual election held March 28, 1922.Section 9708,C. O. S. 1921, provides:

"Provided further, that the school electors of any school district shall vote at the annual meeting (or election) as to whether an excess levy shall be levied for the next ensuing year and the amount of such excess levy.If said excess levy shall receive a majority vote of those voting at said annual meeting (or election) then it shall be the duty of the school district board, when making the estimate for the next ensuing fiscal year, to attach to said estate a certificate of the vote had at the annual meeting (or election) on the question of making such excess levy for the next ensuing fiscal year and if said excess levy carried, then the county excise board, if an excess levy is required for the ensuing fiscal year to create a fund equal to the amount of the approved estimate, shall levy said additional levy not to exceed the amount voted by the people at the annual meeting (or election) or so much of the amount of the estimate approved by the county excise board."

Section 10339,C. O. S. 1921, provides for the holding of an annual meeting of each school district on the last Tuesday in March of each year.Even assuming the plaintiff is correct in relying on these sections of the statutes, the action of the school board is open to the following objections.

The certificate of the school board, filed with the county excise board on July 15, 1922, sets forth the sum total required for school purposes for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1923, and ending June 30, 1924, but the certificate further discloses that no rate of levy was submitted to the voters; the certificate being in part, as follows:

"We further certify that at the annual meeting held in said district on the 28th day of March, 1922, the said statement of estimated needs for the ensuing fiscal year was duly approved by a majority of the voters of said district voting at said annual meeting, and that an increased levy of 'sufficient to cover needs' mills, over and above the regular 5 mills authorized to be levied for school purposes, was voted by a majority of the taxpaying voters of said district voting at an election held during the said annual meeting; that the vote as to the increased levy was, 'Ayes -----, Nays

...