EMPIRE PIPE LINE CO. v. EXCISE BD. OF CARTER COUNTY

EMPIRE PIPE LINE CO. v. EXCISE BD. OF CARTER COUNTY
1933 OK 376
23 P.2d 189
164 Okla. 126
Case Number: 23475
Decided: 06/13/1933
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Empire Pipe Line Co.
v.
Excise Board of Carter County

Syllabus

¶0 1. Taxation--Proceeding in Court of Tax Review Equitable in Nature--Review--Judgment on Question of Fact not Supported by Evidence.
A proceeding before the Court of Tax Review partakes of the nature of an equitable proceeding, and a judgment of that court on a question of fact will be reversed where it is clearly beyond the weight of the evidence.
2. Same--Schools and School Districts--Appropriations for School Purposes--Estimated Income Limited to Amount of Actual Collections From Such Sources for Previous Fiscal Year.
In making an appropriation, the excise board is without authority to consider estimated income in an amount in excess of the actual collections from such sources for the previous fiscal year, and, where an appropriation is made for school purposes, the maximum amount of estimated income to be considered is the actual amount collected from that source for the school fund for the previous fiscal year.
3. Same--Funds in County Treasury Apportioned to Independent District but not Paid to School Treasurer not Considered in Financial Statement and Estimated Needs.
Funds in the hands of a county treasurer which have been apportioned by him to an independent school district, but which have not been paid to the treasurer of the independent school district, may not be considered in the financial statement and estimated needs for the ensuing fiscal year.

Appeal from Court of Tax Review; Porter Newman, Asa E. Walden, and O. C. Wybrant, Judges.

In the matter of the protest of the Empire Pipe Line Company, the Phillips Petroleum Company, the Prairie Oil & Gas Company, the Prairie Pipe Line Company, the Stanolind Pipe Line Company, and the Texas Company against the Excise Board of Carter County. Protest denied as to certain items of tax levy, and protestant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Hunt & Eagleton, for plaintiff in error.
Marvin Shilling, Co. Atty., and Eugene Jordan, for defendant in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This is an appeal by the protestants from a judgment of the Court of Tax Review denying their protest as to certain tax levies for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1931.

¶2 The plaintiffs in error contend that there was error on the part of the Court of Tax Review in denying their protest as to the general fund of Carter county, in which they assert that a surplus of $ 9,654.57 was not considered; that there was error in denying their protest as to the county highway fund, in which they assert that there was a surplus of $ 3,000.98 which was not considered, and that there was error in denying their protest as to the county separate school fund, in which they assert that there was a balance of $ 1,146.98 which was not considered. The defense to those items by the defendant in error is that those items involve questions of fact and that the judgment of the Court of Tax Review is sustained by the evidence. We have carefully examined the evidence shown by the record in this case, and we find that the judgment of the Court of Tax Review is not sustained by the evidence. In re Bliss et al., 142 Okla. 1, 285 P. 73; In re Protest of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 143 Okla. 217, 289 P. 352; Protest of Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co., 149 Okla. 162, 299 P. 180; In re St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 151 Okla. 126, 2 P.2d 944, and Protest of Bledsoe et al., 161 Okla. 227, 17 P.2d 979. It is evident from the record that the balances claimed by the plaintiffs in error to have been on hand were actually on hand and that they were disregarded. The judgment of the Court of Tax Review on those three items is reversed.