TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Winkler & McQueen, Inc. v. State

WINKLER & McQUEEN, Inc., v. STATE

Winkler & McQueen, Inc. v. State, 1934 OK 162, 30 P.2d 672
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 13, 1934
Docket
No. 22130
Judges
Andrews, Riley, Cullison, Osborn, Welch
Citations
30 P.2d 6721934 OK 162167 Okla. 4581934 Okla. LEXIS 568

Opinion of the Court — Andrews

ANDREWS, J.

This is an appeal by Winkler & McQueen, Inc., a corporation, from a judgment of the county court of Stephens county in a tax ferret proceeding instituted before the county treasurer for the purpose of having placed upon the tax rolls, as omitted property for the years 1927, 1928, 1929', and 1936, one rotary drilling rig and one joint of casing of the agreed value of $2,500 belonging to said corporation. The county treasurer ordered the property assessed on an ad valorem basis as omitted property. An appeal was taken to the county court, resulting in a judgment for the state, and the protestant appealed to this court.

Herein it is contended that the property was used for each of the said years in the operation of oil and gas wells and in the production of oil and gas from wells owned by said corporation, and that the property was not subject to ad valorem taxation under the provisions of section 12434, O. S. 1931, because gross production tax was paid on all oil produced from the premises.

The testimony showed that the drilling rig was used in the drilling of two wells during three years; that it was used only for drilling and deepening wells, and that it was not used for pumping oil from wells. It was not “machinery, appliances and equipment used in and around any oil well producing petroleum or other crude or mineral oil or natural gas.” It was not “actually used in the operation of such well or mine.” Drilling a well is not operating a well producing oil or gas. Such machinery is not within the provisions of section 12434, supra.

In Re Gross Production Tax of Wolverine Oil Co., 53 Okla. 24 154 P. 362 , this court, in construing this particular provision of the statute, said:

“The equipment and machinery referred to is confined to that used in the actual operation of producing wells, hence does not include equipment and machinery on hand, and not so used.”

See, also, Board of Equalization of Carter County v. Carter Oil Co., 152 Okla. 99 , 3 P. (2d) 816 , and In re Assessment of Omitted Property of Prairie Oil & Gas Co., 159 Okla. 181 , 13 P. (2d) 580 .

The property in controversy was subject to ad valorem taxation for the several years in question and was lawfully placed on the tax rolls as omitted property. The county court committed no error in so holding.

The judgment is affirmed.

RILEY, C. J., CULLISON, V. O. J., and OSBORN and WELCH, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1935: 119352026peak 1935 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. v. State1935 OK 1210, 52 P.2d 221

Most recent

  1. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. v. State1935 OK 1210, 52 P.2d 221

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
In re Gross Prod. Tax of Wolverine Oil Co., 1915 OK 792, 154 P. 362 53
Bd. of Equalization v. Carter Oil Co., 1931 OK 579, 3 P.2d 816 11
In re Assessment of Prairie Oil & Gas Co., 1932 OK 572, 13 P.2d 580 6

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