CHELSEA GIN CO. v. CHOCTAW COTTON OIL CO.

CHELSEA GIN CO. v. CHOCTAW COTTON OIL CO.
1936 OK 78
57 P.2d 597
177 Okla. 142
Case Number: 25849
Decided: 01/28/1936
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CHELSEA GIN CO. et al.
v.
CHOCTAW COTTON OIL CO.

Syllabus

¶0 1. TAXATION - Note Admissible if Registered and Tax Paid Before Offered in Evidence.
A promissory note may be registered and the tax paid thereon any time before offered in evidence.
2. SAME - Conclusiveness of Treasurer's Certificate as to Payment of Tax.
Where the certificate of the treasurer substantially conforms to the provisions of the statute showing payment of tax on a promissory note, the question as to whether the proper amount was paid is not a proper issue in an action between the holder and the maker of the note.
3. CONTINUANCE - Motion Properly Overruled Where Purpose Was to Obtain Immaterial Evidence.
A motion for continuance should be overruled where the purpose is to enable the party to submit evidence immaterial to the proper issues in the action.
4. NOW TRIAL - Motion on Ground of Newly Discovered Evidence Properly Overruled Where Evidence Immaterial.
A motion for new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, should be overruled if such evidence would be immaterial to the proper issues in the action.

Appeal from District Court, Rogers County; Ad V. Coppedge, Judge.

Action by the Choctaw Cotton Oil Company against the Chelsea Gin Company and others, on promissory notes. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

H.P. Daugherty, L.S. Robson, and Raymond Bassman, for plaintiffs in error.
Denver N. Davison and Holtzendorff & Holtzendorff, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The defendant in error prosecuted this action against the plaintiffs in error to recover balance due on two promissory notes. At the conclusion of all of the testimony the court sustained the motion of defendant in error for judgment. From the order overruling a motion for new trial, this appeal is prosecuted.

¶2 The decisive question presented on this appeal is whether the notes were admissible in evidence. The notes bore the certificate of the county treasurer certifying that the taxes had been paid. Plaintiffs in error objected to the introduction of the notes, contending: (a) That it appeared from the certificates that the notes were not listed for taxation within 60 days of the date of their execution; and (b) that the proper amount of taxes had not been paid.

¶3 A note may be registered and the tax paid thereon any time before offered in evidence. Alexander v. Wright, 135 Okla. 96, 274 P. 480.

¶4 The trial court held, properly, that the certificate of the treasurer substantially conforms to the provisions of the law, and that the question as to the amount of taxes to be paid by the holder was not a proper issue in this action between the holder and the maker of the notes. Fitzgerald v. Brady, 166 Okla. 21, 25 P.2d 1090; Whittington Park Amusement Co. et al. v. Gardner et al., 98 Okla. 51. 223 P. 684.

¶5 The other assignments of error relate to the action of the court in overruling a motion for continuance to enable plaintiffs in error to submit proof as to the amount of taxes paid, and the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial, to which was attached certificates from the county treasurer showing the amount of taxes which were paid.

¶6 The issue presented by the motion for continuance and the motion for new trial were immaterial and not proper to be considered by the trial court.

¶7 Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

¶8 The Supreme Court acknowledges the aid of Attorneys Thos. H. Owen. Leslie L. Conner, and R.L. Disney in the preparation of this opinion. These attorneys constituted an advisory committee selected by the State Bar, appointed by the Judicial Council, and approved by the Supreme Court. After the analysis of law and facts was prepared by Mr. Owen, and approved by Mr. Conner and Mr. Disney, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this court for examination and report to the court. Thereafter, upon consideration by a majority of the court, this opinion was adopted.