Opinion

Excise Board v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

  • 168 Okla. 523
  • 34 P.2d 268
  • 1934 OK 389
  • 1934 Okla. LEXIS 33
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Jun 28, 1934
Status
Published
Author
Andrews
On the bench
Busby, Riley, Cullison, Wind, McNeill, Osborn, Welch, Andrews, Bayless
Cited by
19 cases

holding that a County appropriation to pay for a mandatory biennial audit provided by the State Examiner and Inspector did not violate Article X, Section 9 because such audits directly benefitted the County

How later courts described this case

  • holding that a County appropriation to pay for a mandatory biennial audit provided by the State Examiner and Inspector did not violate Article X, Section 9 because such audits directly benefitted the County

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ANDREWS, J.

(dissenting). The provisions of section 9, article 10, of the Constitution limit the rate of taxation, except when the limitation therein contained is exceeded pursuant to other provisions of the Constitution. An analysis of those provisions discloses that the limitations contained in section 9, article 10, supra, may be exceeded only when the people authorize the same at an election pursuant to one of the several provisions of the Constitution authorizing such an increase, among which' are sections 26 and 27, article 10 of the Constitution.

None of those provisions authorize an increase in the rate of levy limited by section 9, article 10’, for the purpose of reimbursing a sinking fund, and, in my opinion, a tax levy for the purpose of reimbursing a sinking fund must come within the provisions of the limitation contained in section 9, article 10.

The opinion in this ease holds that a sinking fund may be created pursuant to the provisions of sections 26, 27, and 28, article 10; that the maximum rate of levy authorized by section 9, article 10, may be levied and in addition thereto that a tax levy may be made for the purpose of reimbursing the sinking fund.

. In my opinion that is contrary to the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution. For that reason I dissent.

I do not desire to call attention to all of the manifest errors in the opinion. I content myself with calling attention to the provisions of section 7504, O. S. 1931, which are in direct conflict with one of the statements made in the opinion.

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.