Wagoner v. Evans Evans v. Wagoner
| Decision Date | 23 May 1898 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 252 and 262,s. 252 and 262 |
| Citation | 170 U.S. 588,18 S.Ct. 730,42 L.Ed. 1154 |
| Parties | WAGONER et al. v. EVANS, County Treasurer, et al. EVANS, County Treasurer, et al. v. WAGONER et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In November, 1895, D. Wagoner, W. T. Wagoner, and S. B. Burnett filed in the district court of Canadian county, territory of Oklahoma, a petition against Neil W. Evans, as treasurer, and I. M. Cannon, as sheriff, and Osborn, Hutchinson, and Vasey, as county commissioners, of Canadian county, asking to enjoin the said defendants from levying or collecting certai taxes upon herds of cattle and horses belonging to the complainants, and by them kept and grazed on the Kiowa and Comanche Indian reservation, which is a part of the territory of Oklahoma, but not embraced in any organized county of that territory. In pursuance of the act of congress of May 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 86), that Indian reservation was attached to Canadian county for judicial purposes; and by an act of March 5, 1895, of the territorial legislature, the authorities of any county to which any reservation had been attached for judicial purposes were authorized to assess taxes upon any cattle or other personal property kept or situated within such reservation. The petition alleged that, in pursuance of the said act, the defendants were proceeding to assess and collect taxes for the years 1892 to 1895, both inclusive; that, for several reasons set forth in the petition, the said act of March 5, 1895, was invalid; and that said defendants were proceeding without warrant of law. To this petition a demurrer was filed, which was overruled; and thereupon the defendants filed answers, admitting that they were proceeding to levy and collect taxes as complained of in the petition, and alleging that their action in the premises was in pursuance of a valid statutory enactment of the territorial legislature.
An agreed statement of the facts was filed, and the cause was submitted to the court upon the petition, answer, and statement of facts; and thereupon the court found that the defendants were fully authorized by the laws of Oklahoma territory to collect from the petitioners taxes for territorial and judicial purposes for the year 1895 only, but that they were without authority to collect from the petitioners taxes for county, township, or other than the territorial and judicial purposes. It was therefore decreed by the court that the defendants were authorized and permitted to collect those parts of the tax which were for territorial and judicial purposes for the year 1895 only, and enjoined them from collecting any part of the taxes which were for county, township, or other than territorial or judicial purposes, and no taxes whatever for the years 1892, 1893, and 1894.
From this decree both parties appealed to the supreme court of the territory of Oklahoma, which, on September 4, 1896, affirmed the decree of the district court. 46 Pac. 1117.
From that decree of affirmance, both parties were allowed an appeal to this court by the chief justice of the supreme court of the territory.
A. H. Garland and R. C. Garland, for Wagoner and othrs.
Fred. Beall, for Evans and others.
Mr. Justice SHIRAS, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The appeal of Wagoner and others, owners of cattle kept by them on the Indian reservation attached to Canadian county, brings up the same questions which were considered and determined by us at the present term in the case of Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264, 18 Sup. Ct. 340.
That was an appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Oklahoma, involving the validity of the territorial act of March 5, 1895, which subjected cattle, kept and grazed in any unorganized country, district, or reservation, to taxation in the organized county to which said country, district, or reservation is attached for judicial purposes; and it appears in the present record that the supreme court of the territory regarded that case as identical in principle with the present one. Our examination of the records in the two cases has brought us to the same conclusion.
We therefore deem it unnecessary to again...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaybird Mining Co v. Weir
...and developing the properties of its Indian wards. Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264, 18 S. Ct. 340, 42 L. Ed. 740; Wagoner v. Evans, 170 U. S. 588, 18 S. Ct. 730, 42 L. Ed. 1154; Catholic Missions v. Missoula County, 200 U. S. 118, 26 S. Ct. 197, 50 L. Ed. 398. Those decisions seem to me contro......
-
In re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.
...having a taxable situs within the territory. The same questions were involved and same decision rendered in Wagoner v. Evans, 170 U.S. 588, 42 L. Ed. 1154, 18 S. Ct. 730. Upon the same principle the "net proceeds tax" of Nevada was held to be valid in Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 24 L. Ed......
-
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard
...III gaming devices. 13. In other cases cited by the parties, the fact patterns and analysis mirror Thomas. See Wagoner v. Evans, 170 U.S. 588, 18 S.Ct. 730, 42 L.Ed. 1154 (1898); Utah & N. Ry. Co. v. Fisher, 116 U.S. 28, 6 S.Ct. 246, 29 L.Ed. 542 (1885); Truscott v. Hurlbut Land & Cattle Co......
-
In re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.'s Gross Production Tax for 1919
...was not sufficient to exempt such property, when owned by private individuals, from taxation" --citing Thomas v. Gay and Wagoner v. Evans, supra, and repeating following: "This court held that the tax put upon the cattle of the lessees was too remote and indirect to be deemed a tax upon the......
-
Surviving Castro-huerta: the Historical Perseverance of the Basic Policy of Worcester v. Georgia Protecting Tribal Autonomy, Notwithstanding One Supreme Court Opinion's Errant Narrative to the Contrary
...(1885); Maricopa & Phoenix Railway Co. v. Territory of Arizona, 156 U.S. 347 (1895); Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264 (1898); Wagoner v. Evans, 170 U.S. 588 (1898); and Montana Catholic Missions v. Missoula County, 200 U.S. 118 (1906). See infra notes 126-138 and accompanying text (discussing Fi......