Ward v. Board of County Com Rs of Love County, Okl, No. 224

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtVAN DEVANTER
Citation253 U.S. 17,64 L.Ed. 751,40 S.Ct. 419
PartiesWARD et al. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF LOVE COUNTY, OKL
Docket NumberNo. 224
Decision Date26 April 1920

253 U.S. 17
40 S.Ct. 419
64 L.Ed. 751
WARD et al.

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF LOVE COUNTY, OKL.

No. 224.
Submitted March 11, 1920.
Decided April 26, 1920.

Page 18

Messrs. John Emerson Bennett, of Ft. Worth, Tex., and George P. Glaze, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioners.

Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a proceeding by and on behalf of Coleman J. Ward and sixty-six other Indians to recover moneys alleged to have been coercively collected from them by Love county, Oklahoma, as taxes on their allotments, which under the laws and Constitution of the United States were nontaxable. The county commissioners disallowed the claim and the claimants appealed to the district court of the county. There the claimants' petition was challenged by a demurrer, which was overruled

Page 19

and the county elected not to plead further. A judgment for the claimants followed, and this was reversed by the Supreme Court. Board of Comr's of Love County v. Ward, 173 Pac. 1050. The case is here on writ of certiorari. 248 U. S. 556, 39 Sup. Ct. 12, 63 L. Ed. 419.

The claimants, who were members of the Choctaw Tribe and wards of the United States, received their al otments out of the tribal domain under a congressional enactment of 1898, which subjected the right of alienation to certain restrictions and provided that 'the lands allotted shall be nontaxable while the title remains in the original allottee, but not to exceed twenty-one years from date of patent.' Chapter 517, 30 Stat. 507. In the act of 1906, enabling Oklahoma to become a state, Congress made it plain that no impairment of the rights of property pertaining to the Indians was intended, chapter 3335, § 1, 34 Stat. 267; and the state included in its Constitution a provision exempting from taxation 'such property as may be exempt by reason of treaty stipulations, existing between the Indians and the United States government, or by federal laws, during the force and effect of such treaties or federal laws.' Article 10, § 6. Afterwards Congress, by an act of 1908, removed the restrictions on alienation as to certain classes of allottees, including the present claimants, and declared that all land from which the restrictions were removed 'shall be subject to taxation, * * * as though it were the property of other persons than allottees.' Chapter 199, §§ 1, 4, 35 Stat. 312.

Following the last enactment the officers of Love and other counties began to tax the allotted lands from which restrictions on alienation were removed, and this met with pronounced opposition on the part of the Indian allottees, who insisted, as they had been advised, that the tax exemption was a vested property right which could not be abrogated or destroyed consistently with the Constitution of the United States. Suits were begun in the state courts to maintain the exemption and enjoin the

Page 20

threatened taxation, one of the suits being prosecuted by some 8,000 allottees against the officers of Love and other counties. The suits were resisted, and the state courts, being of opinion that the exemption had been repealed by Congress, sustained the power to tax. English v. Richardson, 28 Okl. 408, 114 Pac. 710; Gleason v. Wood, 28 Okl. 502, 114 Pac. 703; Choate v. Trapp, 28 Okl. 517, 114 Pac. 709. The cases were then brought here, and this court held that the exemption was a vested property right which Congress could not repeal consistently with the Fifth Amendment, that it was binding on the taxing authorities in Oklahoma, and that the state courts had erred in refusing to enjoin them from taxing the lands. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665, 32 Sup. Ct. 565, 56 L. Ed. 941; Gleason v. Wood, 224 U. S. 679, 32 Sup. Ct. 571, 56 L. Ed. 947; English v. Richardson, 224 U. S. 680, 32 Sup. Ct. 571, 56 L. Ed. 949.

While those suits were pending the officers of Love county, with full knowledge of the suits, and being defendants in one, proceeded with the taxation of the allotments, demanded of these claimants that the taxes on their lands be paid to the county, threatened to advertise and sell the lands unless the taxes were paid, did advertise and sell other lands similarly situated, and caused these claimants to believe that their lands would be sold if the taxes were not paid. So, to prevent such a sale and to avoid the imposition of a penalty of eighteen per cent., for which the local statute provided, these claimants paid the taxes. They protested and objected at the time that the taxes were invalid, and the county officers knew that all the allottees were pressing the objection in the pending suits.

As a conclusion from these facts the claimants asserted that the taxes were collected by Love county by coercive means, that their collection was in violation of a right arising out of a law of Congress and protected by the Constitution of the United States, and that the county was accordingly bound to repay the moneys thus collected. The total amount claimed is $7,833.35, aside from interest.

Page 21

Such, in substance, was the case presented by the petition, which also described each tract that was taxed, named the allottee from whom the taxes were collected and stated the amount and date of eachp ayment.

In reversing the judgment which the district court had given for the claimants the Supreme Court held, first, that the taxes were not collected by coercive means, but were paid voluntarily, and could not be recovered back as there as there was no statutory authority therefor; and, secondly, that there was no statute making the county liable for taxes...

To continue reading

Request your trial
186 practice notes
  • United States v. Sullivan, Civ. No. 11928.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • June 28, 1967
    ...recover state taxes assessed and collected in violation of a specified federal exemption. Ward v. Board of County Com'rs of Love County, 253 U.S. 17, 25, 40 S.Ct. 419, 64 L.Ed. 751 Moreover, the beneficiaries of the federally created exemption from state taxes in Seber, Ward, and Jackson Co......
  • Macy's Dept. Stores v. San Francisco, No. A109288.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 2006
    ...216, 56 L.Ed. 436], or because the taxpayers were absolutely immune from the tax, as were the Indian Tribes in Ward [v. Love County (1920) 253 U.S. 17, 40 S.Ct. 419, 64 L.Ed. 751] and Carpenter [v. Shaw (1930) 280 U.S. 363, 50 S.Ct. 121, 74 L.Ed. 478]...." (McKesson, supra, 496 U.S. at p. 3......
  • United States v. Fay, No. 308
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 7, 1962
    ...could be termed inadequate. Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 78 S.Ct. 277, 2 L.Ed.2d 302 (1958); Ward v. Board of County Com'rs, 253 U.S. 17, 22, 40 S.Ct. 419, 64 L.Ed. 751 (1920); see Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600, 604-605, 55 S.Ct. 575, 79 L.Ed. 1082 (1935). But there appears t......
  • Buehl v. Vaughn, SCI-G
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 20, 1999
    ...89 L.Ed. 569 (1945)) nor a "plainly untenable" interpretation in the Page 175 sense possibly relevant here. 7 See Ward v. Love County, 253 U.S. 17, 22, 40 S.Ct. 419, 64 L.Ed. 751 (1920). Buehl's charge of subterfuge flies in the face of the errors that the plurality made in his favor--i.e.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
186 cases
  • United States v. Sullivan, Civ. No. 11928.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • June 28, 1967
    ...recover state taxes assessed and collected in violation of a specified federal exemption. Ward v. Board of County Com'rs of Love County, 253 U.S. 17, 25, 40 S.Ct. 419, 64 L.Ed. 751 Moreover, the beneficiaries of the federally created exemption from state taxes in Seber, Ward, and Jackson Co......
  • Macy's Dept. Stores v. San Francisco, No. A109288.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 2006
    ...216, 56 L.Ed. 436], or because the taxpayers were absolutely immune from the tax, as were the Indian Tribes in Ward [v. Love County (1920) 253 U.S. 17, 40 S.Ct. 419, 64 L.Ed. 751] and Carpenter [v. Shaw (1930) 280 U.S. 363, 50 S.Ct. 121, 74 L.Ed. 478]...." (McKesson, supra, 496 U.S. at p. 3......
  • United States v. Fay, No. 308
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 7, 1962
    ...could be termed inadequate. Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 78 S.Ct. 277, 2 L.Ed.2d 302 (1958); Ward v. Board of County Com'rs, 253 U.S. 17, 22, 40 S.Ct. 419, 64 L.Ed. 751 (1920); see Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600, 604-605, 55 S.Ct. 575, 79 L.Ed. 1082 (1935). But there appears t......
  • Buehl v. Vaughn, SCI-G
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 20, 1999
    ...89 L.Ed. 569 (1945)) nor a "plainly untenable" interpretation in the Page 175 sense possibly relevant here. 7 See Ward v. Love County, 253 U.S. 17, 22, 40 S.Ct. 419, 64 L.Ed. 751 (1920). Buehl's charge of subterfuge flies in the face of the errors that the plurality made in his favor--i.e.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT