St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Haworth
| Decision Date | 08 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | 4253. |
| Citation | 149 P. 1086,48 Okla. 132,1915 OK 428 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. HAWORTH, COUNTY TREASURER, ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Any tax levied in excess of that required by the estimates of the township or school district officers for a fiscal year is illegal and void.
(a) The collection of such illegal and void tax may be enjoined.
Where plaintiff in error has duly filed a brief which reasonably tends to sustain any error properly assigned, and has served a copy of such brief upon the defendant in error, but the latter has, without apparent excuse therefor, failed to file any brief, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory not apparent from an examination of the brief before it upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Canadian County; John J. Carney, Judge.
Action by the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company against G D. Haworth, as County Treasurer, and another, to enjoin the collection of a tax. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
W. F Evans, of St. Louis, Mo., and R. A. Kleinschmidt, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
This is an action by plaintiff in error, as plaintiff in the trial court, against defendants in error, treasurer and sheriff respectively, of Canadian county, as defendants in the trial court, to enjoin the collection of a tax levy of $56.08 for Mustang township, and $63 for school district No. 49, in said county, the same being clearly and far in excess of the amounts required by the estimates made for that year, that is, the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1909, and ending June 30, 1910, which required amounts were duly paid by the plaintiff. A temporary injunction was granted, but, upon the trial of the case, the court denied plaintiff's prayer for a permanent injunction and dissolved the said temporary injunction.
The defendant in error has, without offer of excuse therefor failed to file any brief; and plaintiff's brief, in which the case of St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Tate, 35 Okl. 563, 130 P. 941, is cited and quoted as supporting its demand of relief, at least reasonably tends to sustain its assignment of error in the aforesaid action of the trial court. Also see St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 35...
To continue reading
Request your trial