The Legislature has provided adequate remedies by which erroneous or invalid taxes may be adjusted, and has specifically provided that the remedies thus given must be timely resorted to, and has provided that if the remedies given are not resorted to within the time prescribed, the right to contest the validity of a tax levy is barred. Town of Burbank v. Sheel, 131 Okla. 292, 268 P. 1106. 3.
The Oklahoma cases also hold that, after expiration of the limitation period set up in such statute, no action may be maintained to enjoin or avoid the assessments except on the question of jurisdiction. See, Shultz v. Ritterbusch et al., 38 Okla. 478, 134 P. 961; Wheeler v. City of Muskogee, 51 Okla. 48, 151 P. 635; City of Chickasha et al. v. O'Brien et al., 58 Okla. 46, 159 P. 282; Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co. et al. v. Smith et al., 68 Okla. 263, 173 P. 516; Bickel v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co., supra; Crosslin et al. v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co. et al., 71 Okla. 286, 177 P. 376; City of Muskogee et al. v. Burford et al., 77 Okla. 174, 186 P. 949; Oliver et al. v. Pickett et al., 79 Okla. 315, 193 P. 526; Edmonds et al. v. Town of Haskell et al., 121 Okla. 18, 247 P. 15, error dismissed, 273 U.S. 647, 47 S.Ct. 246, 71 L.Ed. 821; Bocox et al. v. Town of Bixby et al., 114 Okla. 269, 247 P. 20; Pointer et al. v. Town of Chelsea et al., 125 Okla. 278, 257 P. 785; Town of Burbank et al. v. Sheel, 131 Okla. 292, 268 P. 1106; Wright et al. v. City of El Reno et al., 168 Okla. 594, 35 P.2d 473. Since the property owners, not having filed timely protest, are held to have acquiesced in the making of the improvements and the assessment of the benefits thereof against their properties, the rule should be as vigorously invoked against the city, whose official acts created the street improvement district. It issued its bonds to the investing public.
When the tax rolls for that year were certified to the county treasurer December 1st, for collection, and he issued tax receipts and refund vouchers for the balance remaining in the trust deposits made by stipulation of the parties, and these receipts and refund vouchers were accepted and retained by the taxpayers without protest, as authorized by 68 O.S. 1941 § 15.50[68-15.50], this manner of paying the taxes must be deemed to have been voluntary on the part of said taxpayers and such voluntary payment of taxes may not be recovered. Louisiana Realty Co. v. City of McAlester, 25 Okla. 726, 108 P. 391; Johnson v. Grady County, 50 Okla. 188, 150 P. 497. These statutory remedies of taxpayers are speedy, adequate, and exclusive. Black et al. v. Geissler et al., 58 Okla. 335, 159 P. 1124; Town of Burbank v. Sheel et al., 131 Okla. 292, 268 P. 1106; Cotton v. Blake, County Treasurer, 133 Okla. 60, 270 P. 1105; G.A. Nichols, Inc., v. Bonaparte, County Treasurer, et al., 176 Okla. 100, 54 P.2d 1042. The taxes thus paid for 1942 had been disbursed by the county treasurer, as required by law, to the county and its subdivisions more than three years before the commencement of this action in district court and have been applied by those municipalities to the payment of legal warrants and obligations for the payment of which the 1942 taxes were levied. The pleadings and the evidence in this case, in our opinion, distinguish this case from that of Allen, County Treasurer, v. Henshaw et al., supra, wherein this court said:
To the same effect is In re Gibbens et al., 142 Okla. 180, 286 P. 318. The remedy provided in section 9971, supra, has been said to be exclusive. Black et al. v. Geissler et al., 58 Okla. 335, 159 P. 1124; Town of Burbank v. Sheel et al., 131 Okla. 292, 268 P. 1106. In Dolese Bros. Co. v. Bd. of Co. Com., 151 Okla. 110, 2 P.2d 955, Hays v. Bonaparte, supra, is quoted from with approval But in City of Enid v. Champlin Ref. Co., 112 Okla. 168, 240 P. 604, it is said:
A further proposition of no little significance in this connection is the fact that neither in plaintiffs' pleadings, nor in the proceedings in the lower court, was the issue of the constitutionality of the 15-day statute of limitations raised. The rule is clear that such matters must be raised in the trial court, and not for the first time on appeal. Fast v. Gilbert, 102 Okla. 245, 229 P. 275, and Samuels v. Granite Sav. Bank Trust Co. et al., 150 Okla. 174, 1 P.2d 145. Besides, the validity of the act in question has been approved by this court in the case of Town of Burbank et al. v. Sheel, 131 Okla. 292, 268 P. 1106. Fraud is never presumed, but must be proved by clear and satisfactory evidence, and when a transaction is fairly susceptible of two constructions, the one which will free it from the imputation of fraud will be adopted.
The prayer for an injunction against a tax resale was denied by this court in Wallace, Co. Treas., v. Gassaway, Judge, 148 Okla. 265, 298 P. 867, the controlling factor therein being the provisions of section 9971, C. O. S. 1921. To the same effect are Carpenter v. Shaw, State Auditor, 134 Okla. 29, 272 P. 393; Town of Burbank v. Sheel, 131 Okla. 292, 268 P. 1106; Bond, Co. Treas., v. Zweigel, 130 Okla. 1, 264 P. 893; Blake Co. Treas., v. Metz, 136 Okla. 146, 276 P. 762; Blake Co. Treas., v. Metz, 136 Okla. 150, 276 P. 765; Duling, Co. Treas., v. First Nat. Bank of Weleetka, 71 Okla. 98, 175 P. 554, and Michie v. Haas, 134 Okla. 57, 272 P. 883. In Looney v. Leeper, Secy, of State, 145 Okla. 202, 292 P. 365, it was said:
We have cited the sections of our Code authorizing appeals; also called attention to section 9971, C. O. S. 1921. It will be noted that the last section mentioned provides that in all cases where the illegality of the tax is alleged to arise by reason of some action from which the law provides no appeal, the aggrieved person shall pay the full amount of the taxes at the time and in the manner provided by law, and bring an action to recover the illegal tax paid within the time and in the manner therein specified. This court in Town of Burbank v. Sheel, 131 Okla. 292, 268 P. 1106, said: "Section 9971, C. O. S. 1921, provides a complete and adequate remedy by which persons may obtain relief from an illegal tax, viz., by payment of the taxes at or before the time they fall due, and by bringing an action, as prescribed in said section, to recover the illegal taxes thus paid, and the remedy thus provided is exclusive."
The act of the Legislature was a departure in part from the regular method of securing a refund in case of the collection of an excessive tax, and the limitations stated in the act in fixing a definite time within which to make a claim for said fund were in line with public policy. In the case of Town of Burbank v. Sheel, 131 Okla. 292, 268 P. 1106, it is stated: "The policy of the state to fix a definite time and definite limitations after which actions cannot be maintained to set aside assessments made for public improvements in cities and towns, and to enjoin the collections of ad valorem taxes, is recognized by this court, and held to be an essential policy in order to securely maintain the existence and operation of state government."
The Legislature has provided remedies which must be timely resorted to, and if the remedies given are not resorted to within the time prescribed, the right to contest the amount of benefit to be derived from an improvement (Field) is barred. Town of Burbank v. Sheel, 1928 OK 362, 131 Okla. 292, 268 P. 1106. Four of the plaintiffs in Appeal No. 109,279 (Cox I), are also plaintiffs in this case.
The Legislature has provided remedies which must be timely resorted to, and if the remedies given are not resorted to within the time prescribed, the right to contest the amount of benefit to be derived from an improvement (Field) is barred. Town of Burbank v. Sheel, 1928 OK 362, 131 Okla. 292, 268 P.1106. Four of the plaintiffs in Appeal No. 109,279 (Cox I), are also plaintiffs in this case.