STANOLIND PIPE LINE CO. v. JENKINS

Annotate this Case

STANOLIND PIPE LINE CO. v. JENKINS
1944 OK 230
151 P.2d 422
194 Okla. 334
Case Number: 31628
Decided: 05/29/1944
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

STANOLIND PIPE LINE CO.
v.
JENKINS

Syllabus

¶0 TAXATION - Assessment of property of pipe line companies - Exclusive jurisdiction of State Board of Equalization Syllabus adopted.
The syllabus of Gulf Refining Company v. Jenkins, No. 31587, 194 Okla. 331, 151 P.2d 419, is adopted as the syllabus in this case and made the law hereof.

Appeal from District Court, Creek County; C. O. Beaver, Judge.

Action by H. G. Jenkins against the Stanolind Pipe Line Company et al. From the judgment, named defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Donald Campbell, E. O. Patterson, and Ray S. Fellows, all of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Glenn O. Young, of Sapulpa, for defendant in error.

BAYLESS, J.

¶1 H.G. Jenkins instituted an action in the district court of Creek county against Stanolind Pipe Line Company, a corporation, et al., and the matter is now before this court on appeal by Stanolind Pipe Line Company alone from a judgment in favor of Jenkins. The issues of law and fact are identical with those in case No. 31587, Gulf Refining Co. v. H. G. Jenkins, 194 Okla. 331, 151 P.2d 419, and the facts are the same with immaterial exceptions.

¶2 These cases seem to have been tried below at the same time upon the same general theory and plan with evidence appropriate to each. They were brought here under separate numbers and separate briefs, the separate briefs raising different issues of law but complementing each other. They were orally argued together on appeal and the decision of one is controlling in the other.

¶3 Upon the reasons stated in our opinion in No. 31587, the judgment of the trial court in this case is erroneous and the judgment is thereby reversed and the cause is remanded, with directions to render judgment for Stanolind Pipe Line Company.

¶4 All concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.