State v. Prairie Cotton Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 14 September 1937
• Docket Number: Case Number: 26624
• Citation: 71 P.2d 988,1937 OK 478,180 Okla. 608
• Parties: STATE v. PRAIRIE COTTON OIL CO.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1937 OK 478

71 P.2d 988

180 Okla. 608

STATE v. PRAIRIE COTTON OIL CO.

Case Number: 26624

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 14, 1937

Syllabus

¶0 1. DISCOVERY - Procedure Upon Motion for Discovery of Documentary Evidence in Possession of Adverse Party - Necessary Showing as to Materiality of Evidence.

Under section 317, O. S. 1931, providing for procedure upon motion for the discovery of documentary evidence in possession of an adverse litigant, there must be a judicial determination of the issue relative to the materiality of the evidence sought, and the court, on objection, is unauthorized to issue the order in response to the motion in the absence of proper showing.

2. SAME - Appeal and Error - Motion Addressed to Discretion of Trial Court - Court's Order Presumed Correct.

A motion for the production of documentary evidence as provided in section 317, O. S. 1931, is addressed to the judicial discretion of the trial court, and on appeal every intendment will be indulged in favor of the validity of the court's order thereon, and the same will not be disturbed in the absence of positive showing of an abuse of such discretion.

3. SAME - Essentials of Motion for Discovery of Evidence Under Constitutional Guaranty Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure.

By reason of section 30, article 2, Constitution, securing to the people immunity from unreasonable search and seizure of their private papers and effects, the motion of a litigant to compel production of documentary evidence in possession of the adverse party as provided by section 317, O. S. 1931, to be sufficient, must describe with reasonable particularity the document sought and its materiality to the issues, supported by oath or affirmation.

4. TAXATION - Tax Ferret Proceedings - Assessment of Excess Value of Property not Authorized After Undervaluation in Original Assessment.

An assessment of property at a lesser sum than the actual value of the property so assessed constitutes an undervaluation of property for purposes of taxation, and an assessment of the excess value thereof is unauthorized in a tax ferret proceeding.

5. TAXATION - Act Classifying Money for Purpose of Taxation Constitutional.

Money, as defined in chapter 72, S. L. 1927 (secs. 12339-12344, O. S. 1931), is a proper subject of classification of property for purposes of taxation under section 22, art. 10, Constitution.

6. SAME - Assessment of Money as Omitted Property in Tax Ferret Proceeding.

Any excess of cash belonging to the taxpayer on hand, or on deposit subject to withdrawal on demand, on assessment day over the amount returned and assessed, is subject to assessment as omitted property in a tax ferret proceeding at the rate of one-fifth of 1 per cent. as provided in chapter 72, S. L. 1927 (secs. 12339-12344, O. S. 1931).

7. SAME - Evidence Held to Show no Omitted Property Other Than Cash on Deposit.

Record examined. Held, evidence failed to establish existence of omitted property other than cash on deposit.

Appeal from County Court, Grady County; Owen Vaughn, Judge.

Tax ferret proceeding by the State against the Prairie Cotton Oil Company, a business trust. From the adverse judgment, the State has appealed. Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded, with directions.

Bob Shelton, County Atty., and R.W. Stoutz, Associate Counsel, for plaintiff in error.

Melton & Melton, for defendant in error.

GIBSON, J.

¶1 This is a tax ferret proceeding from the county court of Grady county wherein the state is attempting to assess for taxation certain alleged omitted property of the Prairie Cotton Oil Company, an alleged business trust.

¶2 The property is described as cash on hand or in bank, accounts, accounts receivable, bills receivable, and all other property not heretofore assessed and on hand on the first day of January of the years 1922 to 1932, both inclusive, and of the value of $100,000 for each of said years.

¶3 The court sustained a demurrer to the state's evidence offered in support of its cause for each of the years named, except as to the items of notes and accounts owned by defendant on January 1, 1928. The taxpayer, after resting its case on the latter items, moved for judgment. Judgment was thereupon rendered against the state and in favor of the taxpayer for each of the aforesaid years, and the state has appealed. The state and the taxpayer will be hereafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant, respectively.

¶4 Defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction in the county court by reason of certain alleged constitutional inhibitions. This question has been decided adversely to defendant's contention in Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Grady County, 177 Okla. 240, 58 P.2d 590.

¶5 Plaintiff assigns as error the action of the court in denying its motion for examination of defendant's books and records for the purpose of discovering evidence in support of its cause as provided in section 317, O. S. 1931.

¶6 In State v. Chickasha Milling Co., 180 Okla. 611, 71 P.2d 981, we had under consideration a like question involving a motion in all essential respects the same as the one now before us. It was there held that the trial court properly denied the motion. That decision is controlling of this particular question, and paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the syllabus of that case are adopted here.

¶7 Error is charged to the court's ruling on the aforesaid demurrers and to its rendition of judgment against plaintiff on the merits.

¶8 It is the apparent theory of the plaintiff that the defendant should be assessed on the value of its moneyed capital, surplus, and undivided profits as a corporation under section 12369, O. S. 1931. It is contended that defendant is required by section 12372, O. S. 1931, to make annual return of its assets to the assessor, with description of the property and its value, for the purpose of assessing it on the value of its moneyed capital, surplus, and undivided profits as in the case of corporations. While the defendant did make annual returns in due time, it did not render the same in corporate form as required by section 12372, supra.

¶9 Plaintiff succeeded in showing that the value of defendant's assets on the first day of January of each year was in excess of that revealed to the assessor.

¶10 It is apparently the contention of the plaintiff that, since it has shown that the defendant did not reveal the actual value of its assets to the assessor, it would follow that the excess value was not considered by the assessor when completing the assessment, and that under the rule announced in State v. Rorabaugh-Brown Dry Goods Co., 172 Okla. 216, 45 P.2d 488, it had established a prima facie case against defendant for the assessment of such excess value as omitted property.

¶11 If this contention were correct, it would apply as well to an individual taxpayer as to a corporation.

¶12 The assessments here were not arbitrary assessments, as was the circumstance in the Rorabaugh-Brown Case, supra. This question of assessing excess value was dealt with in State v. Chickasha Milling Co., supra, this day decided, and that decision is controlling of the question. Unless the state can point to particular property not considered by the assessor when making an assessment in...