LOWDEN v. STEPHENS COUNTY EXCISE BD.

LOWDEN v. STEPHENS COUNTY EXCISE BD.
1936 OK 371
57 P.2d 598
177 Okla. 33
Case Number: 26934
Decided: 05/05/1936
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

LOWDEN
v.
STEPHENS COUNTY EXCISE BOARD

Syllabus

¶0 1. TAXATION - Authority of Excise Board Under Constitution to Apportion Maximum Tax Rate of 15 Mills Between County and Municipal Subdivisions.
Under the provisions of section 9, article 10, of the Constitution, as amended by adoption by vote of the people on August 15, 1933, the limitations as to tax levies by municipal subdivisions of the state provided in chapter 122, Session Laws 1933 (House Bill No. 387), were abrogated and authority was vested in the excise board of the several counties to apportion between county, city, town, and school district the maximum of 15 mills on the dollar until such time as the regular apportionment is otherwise provided for by the Legislature.
2. SAME - Classification by Excise Board of School Districts According to Assessed Valuations.
The county excise board is not prohibited front basing its apportionment upon a reasonable classification of school districts according to assessed valuation of taxable property thereof, but any apportionment so made must apply generally as to each classification.

Appeal from Court of Tax Review; Eugene Rice, Tom Pace, and Jesse J. Worten, Judges.

Protest by Frank O. Lowden et al. against certain tax levies by the Excise Board of Stephens County for the fiscal year 1935-36. From judgment of Court of Tax Review denying protest, protestant appeals. Affirmed.

W.R. Bleakmore, W.L. Farmer, John Barry, and Robert E. Lee,for plaintiffs in error.
J.W. Marshall, Co. Atty., and J.G. Clift, Atty. for Board of Education, for defendant in error.

WELCH, J.

¶1 This appeal questions the act of the county excise board in apportioning the maximum millage rate of levy to the county and to the cities, towns, and school districts of the county. Here the board made the apportionment to school districts by a classification of the school districts according to the assessed valuation of the property of the districts. The

protest questioning the authority of the excise board to so act was denied.

¶2 In St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Tulsa County, 171 Okla. 180, 42 P.2d 537, we considered a similar question, and following Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Excise Board of Washington County, 168 Okla. 619, 35 P.2d 274, we held that a county excise board does have authority to so apportion the maximum millage rate under the 1933 amendment to section 9, article 10, of the Constitution. Those decisions are controlling here and direct us to an affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Tax Review.

¶3 We deem additional discussion unnecessary further than to say that no good reason is shown why the excise board should not continue to have and exercise this authority of apportionment "until such time as the regular apportionment is otherwise provided for by the Legislature," as that authority is granted by the amendment above cited. (The quotation is from the amendment itself and from the two former decisions cited.)

¶4 The judgment of the Court of Tax Review denying the protest is affirmed.