When an Excise Board fixes appropriations for a school district at a lesser amount than it was its legal duty to do, the board may, during the fiscal year, correct the district's appropriations. Lowden v. Caddo County Excise Bd., 176 Okla. 213, 55 P.2d 472, 474 (1936); Greer County Excise Board v. Lowden, 177 Okla. 7, 57 P.2d 612, 616 (1936). The Excise Board may make temporary appropriations for school boards, 68 O.S. 1991 § 3020[ 68-3020], as well as supplemental and additional appropriations, 68 O.S. 1991 § 3021[ 68-3021]; Protest of Cities Service Gas Co., 162 Okla. 131, 19 P.2d 546 (1933).

"(2) The court erred in failing to hold that the levy complained of in said protest was illegal and void for the reason that the statutory provision controlling said levy was unconstitutional." A situation very similar to this was considered in the case of Lowden et al. v. Caddo County Excise Board, 176 Okla. 213, 55 P.2d 472, and in the body of the opinion the court used this language which appears very appropriate to the facts here involved: "Under the facts in the instant case it was the duty of the excise board in considering the budgets of the several school districts here involved to appropriate greater amounts for the use of the school districts than it did appropriate by its original action.

"The excise board may reconvene at any time within 60 days after the filing of the budgets and levies with the State Auditor, and reduce any protested budgets and levies . . . ." In Lowden et al. v. Caddo County Excise Board, 176 Okla. 213, 55 P.2d 472, and Greer County Excise Board v. Lowden et al., 177 Okla. 7, 57 P.2d 612, it was held that the mere filing of a protest does not destroy the authority of the excise board to convene within the time fixed by the statute, supra, and reduce any budget or levy. Plaintiffs in error cite Lusk v. Ryan, County Treas., 69 Okla. 165, 171 P. 323, a decision in an action to recover taxes paid under protest, rendered long prior to the adoption of Initiative Petition No. 100.

We consider the rule there stated controlling upon the court here, and under the facts now before us we think there can be no reasonable question but that at this late date in the fiscal year the writ should not now be permitted to issue. See, also, Lowden v. Caddo County Excise Board, 176 Okla. 213, 55 P.2d 472; Greer County Excise Board v. Lowden, 177 Okla. 7, 57 P.2d 612; Board of Education of City of Guthrie v. Logan County Excise Board, 86 Okla. 24, 206 P. 517, and Webster v. Morris, 129 Okla. 145, 264 P. 190, and others to the same effect. The city of Tulsa urges that at the time the trial court granted the writ the condition which we have mentioned did not exist, and that the delay has been occasioned by the failure of duty of the excise board. If we agree with the city in this respect, we still would not feel that our conclusion should be affected thereby.

This it was specifically authorized to do by statute, aside from what might have been Its incidental power or authority. See Frank O. Lowden v. Caddo County Excise Board, 176 Okla. 213, 55 P.2d 472. Strictly speaking, it might be said that the striking of this $10,000 item from the budget, which was the specific item protested, effectively disposed of the protest in the exact form as filed.