Sweet v. Boyd

• Decision Date: 18 February 1898
• Citation: 6 Okla. 699,1898 OK 22,52 P. 939
• Parties: SWEET, et al. v. BOYD, et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1898 OK 22

52 P. 939

6 Okla. 699

SWEET, et al. v. BOYD, et al.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 18, 1898

Syllabus

¶0 1. GREER COUNTY--When Made Part of Oklahoma. By the act of congress, approved May 2, 1890, creating the Territory of Oklahoma, the territory now comprising the county of Greer was included within the boundaries of Oklahoma Territory and made a part of the Territory. The grant of such territory being, by the 25th section of said act of congress, subject to be defeated by a decision of the supreme court of the United States, adverse to the United States, in a controversy between the United States and the state of Texas, concerning the title to and jurisdiction over the lands in said county; such controversy having been decided by the supreme court in favor of the United States; such decision, in effect, related back to the date of the act of May 2, 1890, and made said lands a part of Oklahoma from that date. Although such decision was not made until March 16, 1896, and although the said act of congress provided that it should not apply to said Greer county until the title to the lands in said county had been so adjudicated and determined, such lands, under said decision, and said act of congress, were in fact, in Oklahoma, and a part thereof on the 1st day of February, 1896. Notwithstanding that the laws of Oklahoma were not operative in said Greer county until the said 16th day of March, 1896, property situated in said county on the 1st day of February, 1896, was in the Territory of Oklahoma on that date and might be subjected to taxation for the year 1896, under the laws of the Territory, which were suspended pending the controversy between the United States and Texas, which suspension ceased immediately upon the judicial determination of such controversy.

2. TAXATION--Equitable Relief From. Where a party invokes the powers of a court of equity to relieve from the payment of a tax, he must not only show that there has been a departure in manner or time from the proceedings provided for the assessment, levy or collection of the tax, or an omission in the procedure, but he must show that such departure or omission affects the ground work and substance of the procedure and affects the justice or merits of the claim on the part of the public, and injuriously affects his substantial rights. A court of equity will not lend its aid, by injunction, to restrain the collection of taxes because of mere irregularities in the tax proceedings, which did not injure the substantial rights of the plaintiff.

Error from the District Court of Greer County; before James R. Keaton, District Judge.

J. F. Matthews & J. A. Powers; H. S. Cunningham, Attorney General, of counsel, for plaintiffs in error.

Garrett & Thacker and Horace Speed, for defendants in error.

TARSNEY, J.:

¶1 The defendants in error were, on the 1st day of February, 1896, the owners and in possession of cattle and other personal property, then situated in the county of Greer, which was sought to be subjected to taxation, for territorial and county purposes, by the plaintiffs in error, for the year 1896.

¶2 The first question involved for decision upon the record in this case, is, whether the property of defendants in error was subject to taxation by the Territory of Oklahoma and by the county of Greer, as a county of said Territory, for the year 1896. By secs. 1, and 3, art. 1, ch. 70, Laws of Oklahoma, 1893, all property, real and personal, except such as is expressly exempted by the provisions of sec. 2 of said article, is subject to taxation in the manner provided in said chapter. By sec. 12, art. 2, ch. 70, all personal property is to be listed, assessed and taxed in the county where the property may be situated and kept, on the 1st day of February.

¶3 The defendants in error admit that they were the owners of the personal property sought to be taxed, and that said property was situated and kept in the county of Greer on the 1st day of February, 1896, and it is not contended that it was property of the kind and character by law exempted from taxation; but they allege in their petition and contend here that said property was not situated or kept in any county in this Territory on the said first day of February, 1896; that the lands embraced in what is now Greer county, Oklahoma, on the first day of February, 1896, was not in the Territory of Oklahoma and constituted no part of the Territory of Oklahoma; that said Greer county, on said first day of February, 1896, and for a number of years prior thereto, was an organized county of the state of Texas; and that on said first day of February, 1896, the property of defendants in error was within the jurisdiction of the state of Texas and subject to taxation by said state and by the authorities of Greer county, as an organized county of said state, and not within the jurisdiction of, or subject to taxation by, the Territory of Oklahoma, or by any county, of said Territory. It may be conceded that under ch. 70 of the laws of 1893, only such personal property as was within this Territory on the first day of February of any year, is subject to taxation for that year; and, therefore, the question is, was the property of defendants in error situated in legal effect within this Territory on the first day of February, 1896? The question of boundary between the United States and Spain, west of the Mississippi, had existed from the time of the acquisition of Louisiana by the United States in 1803; and by treaty between the United States and Spain, made February 22, 1819, and ratified February 19, 1821, (8 Stat. pp. 252, 254, 256,) such boundary was established but never definitely delineated or marked.

¶4 By the treaty of 1828, between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, concluded January 12, 1828, the dividing limits of the respective countries were declared to be the same as those fixed by the treaty of 1819. (8 Stat. 372.)

¶5 On the 25th of April, 1838, a convention was concluded between the United States and the republic of Texas, for marking the boundary referred to in the treaty of 1828, between the United States and the United Mexican States.

¶6 Since the establishment of the republic of Texas, there has been a controversy between the United States and the republic of Texas, and between the United States and the state of Texas as to the exact location of the boundary line fixed by the treaty of 1819, each party to such controversy asserting title to the lands now known as Greer county, in this Territory, under certain articles of said treaty. By joint resolution passed March 1, 1845, congress consented that: "The territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the republic of Texas," might be erected into a state to be admitted into the union. One of the conditions of such consent being that the new state be formed, subject to the adjustment by the United States of all questions of boundary that might arise with other governments. (5 Stat. 797.) The conditions prescribed were accepted by Texas. (1st Sayles Early Laws of Texas, art. 1531.) Texas was then admitted as one of the states of the union and afterwards, by act of congress, approved September 9, 1850, (ch. 49, 9, Stat. 446,) certain propositions were made to the state of Texas for the settlement of the controversy regarding the boundary in dispute between the United States and the state of Texas; but no definite settlement of such controversy was ever made and the state of Texas continued to exercise jurisdiction over the territory in dispute, first attaching the same for judicial and municipal purposes to one of the organized counties of said state, and, afterwards, in 1886, organizing the disputed territory as a county and creating the same as a county of said state, by the name of Greer county; and such was the condition when, in 1890, congress created the Territory of Oklahoma.

¶7 By sec. 1 of the act of May 2, 1890, establishing a temporary government of the Territory of Oklahoma, the boundaries of said Territory were so fixed and drawn as to include within said Territory the lands in controversy between the United States and the state of Texas and included as Greer county, Texas, and now included as Greer county, Oklahoma. But, by sec. 25 of said act of congress of May 2, 1890, it was provided:

"That, inasmuch as there is a controversy between the United States and the state of Texas, as to the ownership of what is known as Greer county, it is hereby expressly provided that this act shall not be construed to apply to said Greer county, until the title to the same has been adjudicated and determined to be in the United States; and, in order to provide for a speedy determination of the controversy aforesaid, the attorney-general of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to commence, in the name and on behalf of the United States, and to prosecute to a final determination, a proper suit in equity in the supreme court of the United States, against the state of Texas, setting forth the title and claim of the United States to the tract of land lying between the north and south forks of the Red river, where the Indian Territory and the state of Texas join, east of the 100th degree of longitude, and claimed by the state of Texas as within its boundaries and a part of its land, and designated on its map as Greer county, in order that the rightful title to said land may be finally determined."

¶8 On March 16, 1896, he supreme court of the United States, in an action brought by the attorney general under the authority of said act of congress, held and decided that the territory in dispute called Greer county, "Constitutes no part of the territory properly included within, or rightfully belonging to, Texas, at the time of the admission of that state into the Union, and is not within the limits nor under the jurisdiction of that state, but is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the...