TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Haworth

ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. HAWORTH, County Treasurer, Et Al.

St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Haworth, 1915 OK 428, 149 P. 1086
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 8, 1915
Docket
No. 4253
Judges
Thacker
Citations
149 P. 10861915 OK 42848 Okla. 1321915 Okla. LEXIS 598
Disposition
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Syllabus
1. TAXATION — Excessive Levy — Injunction. Any tax levied in excess of that required by the estimates of the townships or school district officers for a fiscal year is illegal and void. (a) The collection of such illegal and void tax may ho enjoined. 2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Failure to File Brief. Where plaintiff in error has duly filed a brief which reasonably tends ,to sustain any error properly assigned, and has served a copy of such brief upon the defendant in error, but the latter has, without apparent excuse' therefor, failed to file any brief, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory not apparent from an examination of .the brief before it upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained. (Syllabus by Thacker, C.)
Summary
Error from District Court, Canadian County; John J. Carney, Judge. Action by the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company against G. D. Haworth, as County Treasurer, and another, to enjoin the collection of a tax. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Thacker

Opinion' by THACKER, C.

This is an action by plaintiff in error, as plaintiff in the trial court, against defendants in error, treasurer and sheriff, respectively, of Canadian' county, as defendants in the trial court, to enjoin the collection of a tax levy of $56.08 for Mustang *133 township, and $63 for school district No. 49, in said county, the same being clearly and far in excess of the amounts required by the estimates made for that year, that is, the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1909, and ending June 30, 1910, which required amounts were duly paid by the plaintiff. A temporary injunction was granted, but, upon the trial of the case, the court denied plaintiff’s prayer for a permanent injunction and dissolved the said temporary injunction.

The defendants in error have, without offer of excuse thérefor, failed to file any brief; and plaintiff’s brief, in which the case of St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Tate, 35 Okla. 563 , 130 Pac. 941 , is cited and quoted as supporting its demand of relief, at least reasonably tends to sustain its assignment of error in the aforesaid action of the trial court. Also see St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Thompson, 35 Okla. 138 , 128 Pac. 685 , and Same v. Amend et al., 44 Okla. 602 , 145 Pac. 1117 .

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded, with instructions to enter judgment permanently enjoining the collection of said sums, aggregating $119.08.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1917: 31918: 31919: 11921: 11922: 11925: 21926: 11927: 11929: 21943: 11949: 119172026peak 1917 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Seay v. Hawkins17 F.2d 710 (8th Cir. 1927)
  2. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Weaver1918 OK 71, 171 P. 34
  3. El Reno Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Taylor1922 OK 107, 209 P. 749 · Dissent
  4. Grubb v. Smiley1929 OK 534, 285 P. 38
  5. Rogers v. Bass & Harbour Co.1917 OK 482, 168 P. 212
  6. Bristow Battery Co. v. Payne1926 OK 627, 252 P. 423

Most recent

  1. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Tillman County Excise Board1949 OK 174, 208 P.2d 576
  2. Texas-Empire Pipe Line Co. v. Tulsa County Excise Bd.1943 OK 182, 137 P.2d 564
  3. Aaronson v. Smiley1929 OK 522, 285 P. 59
  4. Grubb v. Smiley1929 OK 534, 285 P. 38
  5. Seay v. Hawkins17 F.2d 710 (8th Cir. 1927)
  6. Bristow Battery Co. v. Payne1926 OK 627, 252 P. 423

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
St. Louis & S. F. R. v. Thompson, 1912 OK 818, 128 P. 685 21
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Amend, 1915 OK 35, 145 P. 1117 11
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Tate, 1913 OK 192, 130 P. 941 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list