El Reno Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Taylor, Co.

• Decision Date: 28 March 1922
• Docket Number: Case Number: 12093
• Citation: 209 P. 749,1922 OK 107,87 Okla. 140
• Parties: EL RENO WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. v. TAYLOR, Co. Treas.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1922 OK 107

209 P. 749

87 Okla. 140

EL RENO WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. v. TAYLOR, Co. Treas.

Case Number: 12093

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 28, 1922

Syllabus

¶0 1. Courts--Supreme Court Jurisdiction--Original Jurisdiction to Enjoin Illegal State Taxes--Validity of Statute.

Section 2, article 7, of the Constitution, vests this court with exclusive appellate jurisdiction in civil cases, both at law and in equity; it also vests this court with original jurisdiction in certain matters and further provides: "And the Supreme Court may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by law." Chapter 25, Session Laws 1921, confers original jurisdiction upon this court in actions to enjoin the collection of illegal taxes for state purposes. Held, that, in so vesting this court with original jurisdiction in said matters, the Legislature did no more than confer such other and further jurisdiction as is authorized to be conferred by said section 2, article 7 of the Constitution, and is a valid exercise of legislative power.

2. Same--Power of Legislature to Increase Original Jurisdiction--Limitations.

The Legislature is not unlimited in its power to confer original jurisdiction upon this court. The primary purpose of the Constitution being to create an appellate court, a court of final resort, the Legislature could not so burden it with original jurisdiction as to destroy its primary function as an appellate court.

3. Same.

In matters of general public interest, matters which directly affect the sovereign rights and powers of the state, the Legislature has power, under section 2, article 7, to confer original jurisdiction upon this court.

4. Taxation--Illegality of State Levy--Injunction.

In an action brought in this court under said chapter 25, Session Laws 1921, and under section 7 of said act, if this court should find a state levy to be wholly illegal it may enjoin the collection of the entire levy.

5. Same--Statute--Construction.

Under section 8 of said chapter 25, Session Laws 1921, the remedy provided in the act is not exclusive, but merely cumulative, and is not extended to levies made by any county or municipality, but is extended only to persons affected by an illegal levy of a state tax, and only a state tax.

6. Same--Parties Plaintiff.

Under section 6 of said act the action provided for may be brought by any person affected by the unlawful levy of a state tax.

7. Same--Nature of Remedy.

The remedy provided for in said chapter 25, Session Laws 1921, is not a suit in equity, as was understood by the term "suit in equity" under the common law, but is a legal remedy specifically prescribed by statute.

8. Same.

While the remedy provided for in said act is denominated an action, and is an action in the broader sense of the term in that it is a proceeding for the prevention of a wrong, yet it is not an action within the meaning of the term "action," as defined in section 4646 to 4647, inclusive, Revised Laws 1910, but is a special proceeding as defined by section 4645.

9. Taxation--Duties of State Board of Equalization--Constitution.

Section 21, article 10, of the Constitution, created the State Board of Equalization and prescribed certain duties, but provided: "And it shall perform such other duties as may be conferred by law."

10. Same--Statutes.

Under section 7374, Revised Laws 1910, the Board of Equalization is charged with the duty of ascertaining the total value of all property in the state and with computing the amount appropriated to pay expenses of government for each fiscal year, with 20 per cent. added thereto as an allowance for delinquent taxes, and from such sum deducting the estimated income from all sources other than from ad valorem taxes, and of computing the rate of levy necessary to raise the amount required to be raised for each fiscal year. Held, the duties thus prescribed by said section of statute do not exceed the authority granted under said section 21, article 10, of the Constitution.

11. Same--Duty of "Levying" Taxes.

Under said section 7374 of the statutes, the power to levy a tax is not delegated to the Board of Equalization, nor does it impose upon such board the duty to make a levy. The levy is made by the Legislature itself.

12. Same--Power to Add 20 Per Cent. for Delinquent Taxes.

The provision in section 7374, Rev. Laws 1910, supra, authorizing the Board of Equalization to add 20 per cent. to the amount estimated to be raised, is authorized only when a levy is necessary to be made, and is not authorized to be made when there are sufficient funds on hand to pay the expenses of state government without making a levy at all. When no levy is made, no authority exists for adding the 20 per cent. for delinquent taxes in such levy.

13. Same--Estimates of State Needs--Procedure.

It is the duty of the Board of Equalization, under section 7374, Rev. Laws 1910, supra, in estimating the amount which the state may expect from other sources than the levy about to be made, to add the unexpended cash balance on hand, over and above all outstanding obligations, to the amount estimated to be collected from other sources than the levy about to be made for the ensuing year, and subtract their sum from the total estimated expenses, and then estimate the rate of levy to be made upon the balance.

Original Action from Canadian County.

Action by the El Reno Wholesale Grocery Company against J. Y. Taylor, County Treasurer, to enjoin collection of state tax levy. Injunction granted.

C. O. Blake, Cottingham, Hayes, Green & McInnis, Clifford L. Jackson, E. A. Boyd, Kleinschmidt & Grant, and Herman S. Davis, for plaintiff.

S. P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., and C. W. King, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

HARRISON, C. J.

¶1 This is an original action, filed in this court under the provisions of chapter 25, Sess. Laws 1921, to enjoin the collection of the 1.5 mill rate, estimated by the State Board of Equalization to be the rate necessary to meet the expenses of state government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921. Two decisive questions are involved in the case, viz.: First, whether this court has original jurisdiction over the controversy; second, whether the levy is valid. The plaintiff contends that this court has original jurisdiction, and that the levy is invalid. Defendant contends that this court does not have original jurisdiction, and that the levy is valid. As to the qualification of original jurisdiction, section 1, chapter 25, Sess. Laws 1921, provides:

"The Supreme Court of this state shall have original jurisdiction of actions brought therein to enjoin the enforcement or collection of any illegal tax, charge or assessment made or levied for any state purpose and to enjoin the collection of any such tax, if it shall be found by the court that the same is illegal. Any number of persons against whom any such tax is levied or whose property is affected by any such tax may unite in the petition filed to obtain such injunction and, after any such petition has been filed by any person or persons, other persons similarly situated may, at the discretion of the court, upon permission granted it, join in such petition and become parties plaintiff in such action. Any such action may be brought against any officer or officers of the state or any officer or officers of any county or counties of the state charged with the duty under the statute of enforcing or collecting such tax. "

¶2 If the foregoing provisions of statute are not in conflict with constitutional provisions, then this court has original jurisdiction.

¶3 Section 2, article 7, of the Constitution provides:

"The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be co-extensive with the state, and shall extend to all civil cases at law and in equity, and to all criminal cases until a Criminal Court of Appeals with exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases shall be established by law. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to a general superintending control over all inferior courts and all commissions and boards created by law. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, and such other remedial writs as may be provided by law, and to hear and determine the same; and the Supreme Court may exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by law."

¶4 From the last provision above it is clear that the Legislature may confer other and further jurisdiction by law. Chapter 25, Sess. Laws 1921, at the most, cannot be said to do more than confer other and further jurisdiction. Therefore, the passage of the act was within the legislative power, and was a valid exercise of such power. By this we are not to be understood as holding that the Legislature is unlimited in its power to confer original jurisdiction upon this court. The primary purpose of the Constitution in creating this court was to create an appellate court, a court of last resort by appeal, and the Legislature could not so burden it with original jurisdiction as to destroy its primary function as a final court of appeals. But in matters of such public interest, matters which directly affect the sovereign rights and powers of the state, as does this case, it is within the valid exercise of legislative power to confer original jurisdiction in such matters upon this court; the purpose of the act being to provide a remedy against an invalid state tax.

¶5 Section 7 of the act makes this provision:

"* * * Provided, the court shall first determine the validity of the tax levy under which any tax is sought to be restrained, enforced, collected or returned, and if said levy is found illegal the court shall enjoin the collection of said tax under said levy found illegal as to all parties affected, whether they be parties of said suit or not."

¶6 Therefore, if the court should hold the levy to be illegal in its entirety, the entire state levy should...