Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ST. LOUIS S. F. R. CO. v. HAWORTH, County Treasurer, et al.

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 be 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.)

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 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 therefor, 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 P. 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 P. 685, and Same v. Amend et al., 44 Okla. 602, 145 P. 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ST. LOUIS S. F. R. CO. v. HAWORTH, ET AL
(Jun 8, 1915)