Opinion

Flint v. Board of Com'rs of Tulsa County

  • 188 Okla. 628
  • 112 P.2d 157
  • 1941 OK 88
  • 1941 Okla. LEXIS 94
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Mar 18, 1941
Status
Published
Author
Arnold
On the bench
Arnold, Welch, Corn, Riley, Osborn, Bayless, Hurst, Davison, Gibson
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 62.0%

The opinion

ARNOLD, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Tulsa county sustaining a resale tax deed to the county, from which Ira D. Brooks,

*629

one of the defendants, obtained his title. Charles W. Flint, hereinafter designated plaintiff, attacked the deed on two grounds: First, that the property herein involved was not assessed or extended upon the tax rolls of the county in compliance with sections 12616, 12628, O. S. 1931, 68 Okla. St. Ann. §§ 181, 294, in that more than one lot or part of lot was assessed jointly and a single valuation placed thereon and taxes assessed upon such valuation; second, that the deed, being based on an unlawful and void assessment, is void; and, further, said deed is void upon its face for the reason that it fails to show the amount for which each lot or part of lot was sold.

The record discloses that the plaintiff was a part owner of the west half of lots 1, 2, and 3, block 4, Campbell’s addition to Tulsa, Okla.; that from 1918 to the present time said property, being parts of three contiguous lots, was assessed jointly and a single valuation placed thereon and taxes assessed upon such valuation; that the taxes were paid thereon up to 1929, but that from 1929 to 1939 no part of the taxes were paid; that this property is carried on the tax rolls as improved property. In 1939 this property was advertised and sold at a resale as one tract, unit or lot to Tulsa county for one consideration. Thereafter, the defendant Ira D. Brooks purchased said property from Tulsa county for the sum of $625.

The same propositions raised by the plaintiff in this case were raised by the same attorney in the case of Board of County Commissioners, Tulsa County, v. Sutton, 185 Okla. 665 , 95 P. 2d 648 , and determined therein adversely to the contention of the plaintiff. There is no essential distinction in the facts of this case and the above-cited case.

The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, affirmed.

WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, HURST, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. GIBSON, J., absent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.