St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Morris, Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1930
• Docket Number: Case Number: 20405
• Citation: 288 P. 306,143 Okla. 160,1930 OK 247
• Parties: ST. LOUIS-S. F. RY. CO. v. MORRIS, Co. Treas.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1930 OK 247

288 P. 306

143 Okla. 160

ST. LOUIS-S. F. RY. CO. v. MORRIS, Co. Treas.

Case Number: 20405

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: May 13, 1930

Syllabus

¶0 1. Hospitals--Care of Tubercular Patients--Constitutional Provisions.

A state institution for the treatment of tuberculosis, provided for in House Bill No. 380 by the Seventh Legislature (sections 8961 to 8972, C. O. S. 1921) is not one for the care of aged, infirm or misfortunate, within the meaning of section 3, art. 17, of the Constitution, but is, by clear implication, included in the meaning of article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Same--Statute Placing Tax Burden on Counties Instead of State Held Unconstitutional.

Under article 21 of the Constitution of Oklahoma, institutions for the care of tubercular patients, when maintained by the state, shall be at the expense of the state. Section 8970, C. O. S. 1921, which attempts to place that tax burden upon the counties, is in violation of the Constitution and inoperative.

Error from District Court, Ottawa County; H. H. Smith, Judge.

Action by the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company against E. D. Morris, County Treasurer of Ottawa County. From the judgment, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

E. T. Miller and Cruce & Franklin, for plaintiff in error.

Perry Porter, County Atty., for defendant in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 The parties hereto appear in the same order as they appeared in the trial court, and they will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

¶2 The plaintiff instituted a suit in the district court of Ottawa county to recover from the defendant money paid under protest for taxes alleged by it to be illegal, unauthorized, excessive, and void. From the judgment of the district court, as to a part of the taxes, the plaintiff appealed to this court.

¶3 The question presented is the validity of a levy of one mill for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1927, for a tubercular fund for Ottawa county. That levy was attacked upon two grounds, the first of which is as follows:

"That section 8970, C. O. S. 1921, purporting to authorize an additional levy by counties, of not to exceed 1 mill, for tubercular fund purposes (such levy to be in addition to any levies for current expenses, as limited in the county involved, by section 9692), is unconstitutional because in violation of article 21, Oklahoma Constitution, as specifically construed by this court in an exactly similar case relating to an attempt to authorize a levy for insane patients' treatment, decided by this court in Board of Commissioners of Logan County v. State ex rel. Short, 122 Okla. 268, 254 P. 710."

¶4 Under the view we take of the matter it is not necessary for us to consider the second ground.

¶5 The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that Ottawa county levied a maximum of 4 mills for current expense purposes; that no election was held authorizing an increased levy for current expense purposes; and that a levy of one mill for a tubercular fund was made.

¶6 The trial court rendered a judgment for the defendant after finding that one mill for tubercular purposes was duly authorized under the record and the evidence in the case.

¶7 The maximum levy for current expense purposes of Ottawa county, without an election, is 4 mills. The Seventh Legislature, by House Bill No. 380 (Laws 1919, c. 234) section 10 (section 8970, C. O. S. 1921), provided:

"For the purpose of defraying the expense of transportation and treatment of patients afflicted with tuberculosis at the district sanatoria herein provided for, the excise board of each county is authorized to make an annual levy upon all property in the county, subject to taxes, on an ad valorem basis, of not exceeding one mill per annum, which is hereby declared not to be a current expense and to be for a special purpose, known as 'Tuberculosis Fund,' in addition to the maximum levy for current expenses now provided by law."

¶8 And if that provision is valid, the county was authorized to create such a fund and the excise board to make such a levy.

¶9 It is said by the plaintiff that that act is unconstitutional and in violation of article 21 of the Constitution. That article reads as follows:

"Educational, reformatory, and penal institutions and those for the benefit of the insane, blind, deaf, and mute, and such other institutions as the public good may require, shall be established and supported by the state in such manner as may be prescribed by law."

¶...