Walker v. Hays
| Decision Date | 11 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 17550 |
| Citation | 127 Okla. 123,1927 OK 355,260 P. 15 |
| Parties | WALKER et al. v. HAYS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Taxation--Exemption of Houses Built by Indian on Exempt Allotment--Injunction Against Collection of Tax Warrants.
An Indian built houses on his own allotment. The tax ferret caused the houses to be placed on the tax rolls and a tax levied against them separate and apart from the land itself. No appeal was taken from the order placing the houses on the tax rolls. The allotment of the Indian was not subject to taxation at the time the taxes were levied. When the houses were built on the allotment, under the circumstances in this case they became a part of the allotment and could not be taxed. In such case the taxing authorities had no jurisdiction to levy taxes against the houses, and an injunction will lie to prevent the sale of the houses in satisfaction of the taxes.
Error from District Court, Pontotoc County; J. W. Bolen, Judge.
Injunction by Daniel Hays against W. B. Walker, sheriff, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Tom D. McKeown and C. F. Green, for plaintiffs in error.
A. C. Chaney, for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was commenced in Pontotoc county by defendant in error, Daniel Hays, as plaintiff, against plaintiffs in error, W. B. Walker, sheriff, Albert Chamberlain, treasurer, and R. C. Hurst, tax ferret, as defendants, to restrain the defendants from collecting certain tax warrants against the property of the plaintiff. The parties to this appeal will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants, as they appeared in the trial court.
¶2 The plaintiff is a half-breed Chickasaw Indian and his homestead allotment is partly located in the city of Ada, upon which there are several dwelling houses. The houses were built under the supervision of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes and with money that came into the hands of the Commissioner by sale of a portion of the restricted land of the plaintiff.
¶3 Defendant Hurst is the tax ferret for Pontotoc county, and in checking up the records found that plaintiff had failed to make return of six dwelling houses situated on his homestead allotment for the years 1921-1924, aggregating $ 50,000 in value. The tax ferret caused these houses to be placed on the tax roll and as personal property separate and apart from the real estate. It was not claimed that the land could be taxed. No appeal was prosecuted from the action of the county treasurer in placing the houses on the tax rolls. The tax warrants were issued and the sheriff offered the property for sale.
¶4 In the meantime, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of erroneous assessment, and the county commissioners, upon a hearing of the affidavit, held that the houses were not taxable and removed the property from the tax rolls. From this order defendants appealed to the district court. The defendants, when payment of the tax warrants was refused, at once advertised the property for sale and prior to the date of sale the plaintiff brought this action for a permanent injunction to enjoin defendants from selling the property. The court issued a temporary restraining order, which was afterwards made permanent, from which judgment the defendants appealed to this court.
¶5 Did the trial court have jurisdiction to enjoin the sale under the tax warrants? If the property could be taxed, when the tax ferret followed the procedure provided by law in placing it on the tax rolls and the plaintiff did not appeal therefrom, he would be bound thereby and, not having pursued his legal remedies, he would not be permitted to pursue the equitable remedy of injunction. If, on the other hand, the property was not taxable, the county officials had no jurisdiction whatever to levy a tax against the same and any levy made by them would be void, and if the levy was void, then the equitable remedy of injunction could be pursued to enjoin the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muskogee Fair Haven Manor Phase I, Inc. v. Scott
...prevent enforcement of a tax upon exempt property," relying on Cox v. Dillingham, which we explain in this opinion, and Walker v. Hays, 127 Okla. 123, 260 P. 15 (1927), which is also cited in In Walker the taxpayer, claiming the assessed property is not taxable under federal law, obtained a......
-
Carpenter v. Shaw
...voluntarily made. As we view it, that decision is not decisive of the issue here. ¶17 Plaintiffs also rely upon the case of Walker v. Hays, 127 Okla. 123, 260 P. 15. There the taxes levied were upon a dwelling house which a full-blood Choctaw Indian had built upon an allotment, which allotm......
-
Gibson v. Phillips Univ.
...that injunction is a proper remedy to prevent enforcement of collection of a tax on property which is legally exempt. In Walker v. Hays, 127 Okla. 123, 260 P. 15, this court held that injunction would lie to prevent the sale of tax exempt property to satisfy taxes assessed against it. And i......
- Walker v. Hays