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

• Decision Date: 24 May 1927
• Docket Number: Case Number: 18162
• Citation: 1927 OK 152,257 P. 784,125 Okla. 183
• Parties: ST. LOUIS-S. F. RY. CO. v. BAILEY, Co. Treas.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1927 OK 152

257 P. 784

125 Okla. 183

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

Case Number: 18162

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: May 24, 1927

Syllabus

¶0 1. Highways -- County Highway Fund -- Limit for Levy.

Chapter 48, Session Laws 1923-24, amends section 10202, C. O. S. 1921, and authorizes the county excise boards of the state to levy an additional tax for the county highway fund, which tax, together with the maximum amount allowed counties for current expenses under section 9692, C. O. S. 1921, may not exceed eight mills.

2. Municipal Corporations -- Bond Issue Payable in Installments--Amount of Annual Tax Levy for Sinking Fund.

Where a municipal subdivision of the state authorizes and creates a bonded indebtedness, and such bonds are issued on the same date and for the same purpose, and said bond issue is made payable in equal installments at intervals of five, ten, fifteen, and twenty years thereafter, said bonded indebtedness, under article 10, section 26 of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and section 9695, C. O. S. 1921, is to be construed as one transaction and a levy for a sinking fund accrual, in order to provide for the payment of said installments, should be made equally each year, and arriving at the amount necessary to retire said bonds, it is necessary to divide the total amount represented in such bond issue by the number of tax-paying years between the date of said issue and the retirement of said issue.

Error from District Court, Craig County; A. C. Brewster, Judge.

Action by the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company against Frank H. Bailey, County Treasurer of Craig County. From the judgment, plaintiff brings error; defendant filing cross-appeal. Affirmed.

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

Clay M. Roper, Co. Atty., and Edward H. Brady, Asst. Co. Atty., for defendant in error.

LESTER, J.

¶1 The parties to this action appear in the relation as in the district court. The plaintiff filed its petition in the district court in which is challenged the legality of a levy of 2.75 mills for the county highway fund, which levy was in excess of the levy made by the county excise board for current expenses of said county. This question was decided against the contentions of the plaintiff in the court below, and is here presented for review.

¶2 The plaintiff in its petition also challenged the correctness of a levy for the benefit of the sinking fund of school district No. 65 in said county, in which plaintiff alleged that said levy was in excess of .7 mills. This issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant filed a cross-appeal to reverse the judgment entered thereon by the district court.

¶3 We have carefully examined the brief of the plaintiff pertaining to the levy made by the county excise board of Craig county, relating to the county highway fund, and the exact question here involved was decided in an opinion by this court against the contentions of the plaintiff in the case of Wirt Franklin v. M. S. Ryan, County Treasurer, et al., 125 Okla. 161, 256 P. 932, and this court adopts the rule laid down therein as applicable to the instant case, in which this court held that:

"Chapter 48, Session Laws 1923-24, amends section 10202, C. O. S 1921, and authorizes the county excise boards of the state to levy an additional tax for the county highway fund, which tax, together with the maximum amount allowed counties for current expenses under section 9692, C. O. S. 1921, may not exceed eight mills."

¶4 Judgment of the district court on this assignment of error is affirmed.

¶5 The cross-appeal of the defendant presents to this court for review the judgment of the district court rendered in favor of the plaintiff for .7 mills as being in excess of the amount necessary to provide proper accruals for a sinking fund for school district No. 65.

¶6 The agreed statement of facts relating to the levy for the sinking fund of school district No. 65 is as follows:

"Upon the fourth cause of action, it is agreed that for said year 1925, the county excise board made a levy for the benefit of school district No. 65, among others, of 3.7 mills for the sinking fund requirements; that in computing said rate of 3.7 mills, said county excise board took into consideration nnd estimated accrual in the total amount of $ 3,166.66 as accrual for said year upon a certain bond issue, dated May 17, 1921, issued in four (4) separate bonds,

...