TULSA COUNTY v. KURN

TULSA COUNTY v. KURN
1940 OK 372
106 P.2d 795
188 Okla. 123
Case Number: 29861
Decided: 09/17/1940
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

TULSA COUNTY, EXCISE BOARD,
v.
KURN et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. COUNTIES--Authority of county excise board to allocate 15-mill limit of tax levy not impaired by Act of 1939.
Article 25, ch. 66, S. L. 1939, 11 Okla. St. Ann. § 13, does not constitute a legislative allocation of limit of levy of ad valorem taxes, but leaves unimpaired the authority and power of the county excise board to allocate such limit of levy pursuant to section 9, art. 10, Oklahoma Constitution, as amended in 1933.
2. SAME--Legality of appropriations actually made not affected by failure to make county general fund appropriation which should have been made.
The omission to request or make a county general fund appropriation which should have been made does not necessarily affect the legality of the appropriations actually made, and if the appropriations actually made are for legal purposes and are adequately and properly financed within the limit of levy, the appropriations made and the tax levy therefor are not subject to protest because an appropriation was not made which should have been made.
3. SAME--Appropriations actually made not subject to protest because of failure to make appropriation claimed to be mandatory.
If the county commissioners failed to request and the excise board fails to make an appropriation claimed by a taxpayer to be mandatory, no right thereby accrues to protest any part of the appropriations actually made for legitimate purposes and properly financed within the legal limit of levy.
4. SAME--Money on hand June 30th in "court fund" not properly usable in financial statement to finance general fund appropriations for ensuing year.
Cash derived from sources enumerated in section 1, ch. 117, S. L. 1933, becomes the 11 court fund" provided thereby and is paid out on "cash vouchers" and does not become a part of the county general fund, and money on hand on June 30th in the "court fund" is not properly usable in the financial statement to finance general fund appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year.

Appeal from Court of Tax Review; Jas. T. Shipman, Clarence Mills and J. I. Goins, Judges.

Protest by J. M. Kurn and John G. Lonsdale, Trustees, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, against the Tulsa County general fund levy for fiscal year 1939-40. From judgment sustaining protest in part and denying protest in part, the county and the protestants appeal. Affirmed in part and reversed in part so as to deny both grounds of protest.

Dixie Gilmer, County Atty., and John F. Conway, Asst. County Atty., both of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
J. W. Jamison and Cruce, Satterfield & Grigsby, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

WELCH, V. C. J.

¶1 This case involves the same questions this day determined in No. 29960, Tulsa County, Excise Board, v. Texas-Empire Pipe Line Company et al., 188 Okla. 128, 106 P.2d 792.

¶2 It was here agreed that the decision in this case should follow the decision in that case, and by agreement the attorneys for this defendant in error filed a brief in that case.

¶3 Accordingly, upon authority of the case cited, the judgment here appealed from is affirmed in part, and reversed in part, so as to deny both grounds of the tax protest.