" Illustrations of similar claims held to be beyond the reach of the statute are found in Seval v. Hunt, 198 Okla. 227, 177 P.2d 673; Cole v. Harvey, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199. We conclude that proof of compliance with the Oklahoma Intangible Tax Law is not a jurisdictional block to consideration of the case upon the merits.
See, Rader v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc., 1997 OK 16, ยถ 17, 934 P.2d 332; Corbett v. Combined Communications Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., see note 15, supra.Fisk v. Bullard, 1951 OK 370, ยถ 4, 205 Okla. 502, 239 P.2d 424; Cole v. Harvey, 1948 OK 187, ยถ 8, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199; Scott v. Scott, 1928 OK 303, ยถ 22, 131 Okla. 144, 268 P. 245.Miller v. Independent School Dist. No. 56 of Garfield County, 1980 OK 19, ยถ 11, 609 P.2d 756; Cox v. Curnutt, 1954 OK 150, ยถ 17, 271 P.2d 342.
We are of the opinion that the argument presented by defendant under his first proposition is meritorious. Plaintiffs in their argument supporting trial court's holding that proof of payment of intangible tax was unnecessary rely on our holding in the cases of Lumbermen's Supply Co. v. Neal, 189 Okla. 544, 119 P.2d 1017; Cole v. Harvey, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199, and Gasper v. Mayer, 171 Okla. 457, 43 P.2d 467. We find that these cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.
"A cause of action based upon an unliquidated account does not require the pleader to plead or prove the applicable provisions of the Intangible Personal Property Law. 68 O.S. 1951 ยงยง 1507[ 68-1507] and 1515." To the same effect see Cole v. Harvey, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199 and McCoy v. Burr, Okla., 265 P.2d 719. Plaintiff was not required to comply with the Intangible Law.
As defendant's argument under her "Fifth Assignment of Error" has already been answered by our foregoing conclusions on substantially the same arguments under other "Assignments", there is left for decision only her contention, under her "Fourth Assignment * * *" that plaintiff failed to prove payment of any intangible property tax on her broker's commission here involved. Plaintiff's cause of action for the commission did not accrue until during the month of December, 1956, and judgment in the case was entered October 1, 1957. Plaintiff's counsel say that her claim was an unliquidated one and consequently it was not taxable, citing Cole v. Harvey, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199, and Cravens v. Hughes, 207 Okla. 503, 250 P.2d 877, 882. Both of the cited cases referred to the definition of a "liquidated account as one, the amount of which is agreed upon by the parties, or fixed by operation of law."
Of course, this is a matter of speculation, but it demonstrates at least one hypothesis upon which the verdict could be justified. It also demonstrates that the verdict and judgment here are not subject to the rules announced in Choi v. Turk, 55 Okla. 499, 154 P. 1000, and Maly v. Lamerton, 113 Okla. 168, 240 P. 716, cited by defendants. In this connection, see Cole v. Harvey, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199. Nor, as above indicated, can the verdict and judgment be said to be without sufficient evidence to support them. In the present case, there was evidence sufficient to have warranted the jury in finding the defendants entitled either to no offset for damages to the roof and delay in the completion of the house, or to a major portion, or to a smaller portion, of the amount they sought for these items.
It was not a liquidated account and was not required to be rendered for taxation under the Intangible Tax Law, 68 O.S. 1951 ยง 1501[ 68-1501]. Norris v. Norris, 196 Okla. 46, 162 P.2d 521; Seval v. Hunt, 198 Okla. 227, 177 P.2d 673; Cole v. Harvey, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199. Affirmed.
The defendants admitted an indebtedness of only $120 and also denied plaintiff's employment as alleged, claiming plaintiff's services were without value, thus it appears that under these allegations and the evidence in support thereof, plaintiff's claim is based on an "unliquidated claim." In Cole v. Harvey, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199, we said: "A liquidated account is one, the amount of which is agreed upon by the parties, or fixed by operation of law."
Plaintiff's right to recover was entirely dependent upon establishing title in himself as to the mineral interest. In such cases, the aforementioned section is not applicable. (See Cole v. Harvey, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199; Watts v. Elmore, 198 Okla. 141, 176 P.2d 220. Judgment affirmed.
The city of Okmulgee introduced a map in evidence and contends that it is an exact measurement and that it must be accepted as true. Nowhere does the record show that this is an exact measurement and undoubtedly the jury was not sufficiently impressed with this exhibit. This court has held many times that where there is evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict it will not be set aside upon appeal. Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Hentzen, 200 Okla. 364, 194 P.2d 847; Cole v. Harvey, 200 Okla. 564, 198 P.2d 199, and State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. Du Bose, 200 Okla. 596, 198 P.2d 646. There being evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict, the judgment is affirmed.