Board of Comm'rs Kingfisher v. Guarantee State Bank

7 Citing cases

  1. Hopper et al. v. Oklahoma County

    43 Okla. 288 (Okla. 1914)   Cited 15 times
    In Hopper v. Okla. Co., 43 Okla. 288, 143 P. 4, L. R. A. 1915B, 875, it was held that a provision for appeals to courts from tax assessments was not an improper delegation to the judiciary of legislative power as inhibited by section 1, art. 4, Const. of Okla.

    However, the strict rule applied in the Kansas case is not followed by a great many courts, and the contrary doctrine has been repeatedly recognized by this court. See London et al. v. Day, 38 Okla. 428, 133 P. 181, a case involving the identical proposition, in which opinion the following Oklahoma cases are cited: Williams v. Garfield Exchange Bank, 38 Okla. 539, 134 P. 863; Rumph, Treas., v. Joines, 38 Okla. 30, 131 P. 1095; In re McNeal, 35 Okla. 17, 128 P. 285; In re Western UnionTelegraph Co., 29 Okla. 483, 118 P. 376; Board Com'rs of Kingfisher Co. v. Guarantee State Bank et al., 27 Okla. 736, 117 P. 216; Asher State Bank v. Board of Com'rs of Pottawatomie Co., 31 Okla. 145, 120 P. 634 — in which the validity of such statute is recognized. And the court said:

  2. Madison County v. Williams

    183 So. 452 (Ala. 1938)   Cited 3 times

    But we think counsel have given too strict a construction to the language of the decisions as to a lawful deposit. In 18 Corpus Juris 591, the authorities are cited sustaining the view there may be a de facto depository just as there may be a de facto officer, and the cited case of Board of County Commissioners v. State Bank, 64 Minn. 180, 66 N.W. 143, furnishes an apt illustration of this principle, wherein depositaries are denoted as quasi public officers; and that authority, together with Commercial Guaranty State Bank v. City of Longview, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 217, demonstrates that should litigation have arisen concerning the binding effect of the pledge of these bonds, the bank could not be heard to say that its appointment as a depository was unlawful. See, also, Talley v. State, 121 Ark. 4, 180 S.W. 330.

  3. McAlester Trust Co. v. Watson, County Treasurer

    146 P. 586 (Okla. 1915)   Cited 3 times

    In State et al. v. Cawthorn's Estate, 31 Okla. 560, 122 P. 523, a like attempt to review the action of the county court, in a proceeding of the character here involved, was presented for our consideration, and it was held that the Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to review, on appeal thereto, an order or judgment of a county court, made on appeal to such court from a decision and order of the county treasurer, assessing property for taxation alleged to have been unlawfully omitted from the tax returns for certain years. The court there cited, in support of its position, Board of Com'rs of Kingfisher County v. Guarantee State Bank, 27 Okla. 736, 117 P. 216; Asher State Bank v. Board of Com'rs of Pottawatomie County, 31 Okla. 145, 120 P. 634. The same question was again before the court in Re Duncan, 144 P. 374, and the rule theretofore announced in State et al. v. Cawthorn's Estate, supra, was followed.

  4. In re Benedictine Fathers of Sacred Heart Mission

    145 P. 494 (Okla. 1914)   Cited 15 times

    It is conceded that no appeal or proceeding in error will lie to this court from the judgment of the county court in such case. Board of County Com'rs of Kingfisher County v. Guarantee State Bank et al., 27 Okla. 736, 117 P. 216; State et al. v. Cawthorn's Estate, 31 Okla. 560, 122 P. 522; Asher State Bank v. Board of Commissioners of Pottawatomie County, 31 Okla. 145, 120 P. 634. The sole question in this case is whether a writ of certiorari will issue to review the action of the county court in the premises.

  5. Carrico v. Crocker

    133 P. 181 (Okla. 1913)   Cited 10 times

    On March 27, 1912, Samuel Crocker and a number of other taxpayers of Oklahoma county began their action against the board of county commissioners and county treasurer of said county in the district court thereof. The purpose of the action was to restrain the collection of the taxes of the said parties for the year 1911, as the same were equalized by the State Board of Equalization. Since the filing of the case this court has in effect decided every question presented therein in the following cases: In re McNeal, 35 Okla. 17, 128 P. 285; In re Western Union Telegraph Co., 29 Okla. 483, 118 P. 376; Board of Com'rs of Kingfisher County v. Guarantee State Bank et al., 27 Okla. 736, 117 P. 216; Asher State Bank v. Board of Com'rs of Pottawatomie County, 31 Okla. 145, 120 P. 634; Williams v. Garfield Exchange Bank, ante, 134 P. 863; Rumph v. Joines, ante, 131 P. 1095; London et al. v. Day, ante, 133 P. 181. The case at bar might well be disposed of on the authority of the foregoing cases without discussion, except the defendants in error present here the proposition: First, that there was no order made by the State Board of Equalization requiring the county clerk to extend the raise upon the property of the taxpayers, and hence the said official was without authority to do so; and, second, that the said taxpayers were entitled to notice and a hearing before the said raise was extended.

  6. London et al. v. Day

    133 P. 181 (Okla. 1913)   Cited 5 times

    So far as the merits of the case and the remedy are concerned, they have been settled in this court, directly and in principle in a number of decisions wherein the same and kindred questions were involved, and it would be a useless labor to review what we have there said. See Williams v. Garfield Exchange Bank, post, 134 P. 863; Rumph, Treasurer, v. Joines, ante, 131 P. 1095; In re McNeal, 35 Okla. 17, 128 P. 285; In reWestern Union Telegraph Co., 29 Okla. 483, 118 P. 376; Board of Com'rs of Kingfisher County v. Guarantee State Bank et al., 27 Okla. 736, 117 P. 216; Asher State Bank v. Board of Com'rs of Pottawatomie County, 31 Okla. 145, 120 P. 634. In addition, however, plaintiff assails the constitutionality of the act of the Legislature under which the foregoing opinions have been rendered.

  7. State et al. v. Cawthorn's Estate

    122 P. 522 (Okla. 1912)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. Cawthon's Estate, 31 Okla. 560, 122 P. 522, the question arose whether an appeal lay to this court from the decision of the county court on appeal to that court from the action of the county treasurer in listing omitted property under the tax ferret law.

    "Appeals and proceedings in error shall be taken from the judgments of county courts direct to the Supreme Court, in all cases appealed from justices of the peace, and in all criminal cases of which the county court is vested with jurisdiction, and in all civil cases originally brought in the county court, in the same manner and by like proceedings as appeals are taken to the Supreme Court from judgments of the district court." In Board of Co. Com'rs of Kingfisher County v. Guarantee State Bank et al., 27 Okla. 736, 117 P. 216, it was said by the court, construing the foregoing section of the Constitution: "It will be observed that this section authorizes appeals and proceedings in error to the Supreme Court in three classes of cases, to wit, first, in all cases appealed from the justices of the peace to the county court; second, in all criminal cases of which the county court is vested with jurisdiction; third, in all civil cases originally brought in the county court."