# State Ex Rel. Hawkins v. Oklahoma Tax Commission > Supreme Court of Oklahoma · July 29, 1969 · 462 P.2d 536 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9536301 ## Case - **Full name:** STATE of Oklahoma Ex Rel. L. G. HAWKINS, Plaintiff, v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION and Leo Winters, State Treasurer of Oklahoma, Defendants - **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma - **Decided:** July 29, 1969 - **Citations:** 462 P.2d 536; 1969 OK 118; 1969 Okla. LEXIS 438 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Lavender - **Judges:** Jackson, Irwin, Berry, Davison, Williams, Blackbird, Hodges, Lavender, McInerney - **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9536301 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding time limit provisions of OKLA. CONST. art. V, § 55 do not apply "to revenues levied and earmarked for a special purpose which have accrued in a special fund" - noting that Okla. Const. art. X, § 23 modifies Okla. Const. art. X, § 19 - discussing the context surrounding the amendment's passage ## Opinion text LAVENDER, Justice (dissenting). I think the purpose of Article 5, Section 55 of Oklahoma’s Constitution is clear. It is a limitation upon the exercise by the Legislature, of its control over money in the “Treasury of this State,” * * * “its funds” * * * or, any of the funds under the management of the state. The constitutional prohibition therefore assumes a power or control over such funds to be in the Legislature. If, with regard to a certain fund, the Legislature has no power or control over its expenditure, then to me it seems logical that the constitutional limitations of Article 5, Section 55 are not applicable. In determining the application of Article 5, Section 55, concern should be had with the nature of the funds involved. Simply because certain money is paid into the Treasury of the State and there retained for safekeeping, such money does not automatically become subject to the control of the Legislature regarding the circumstances under which it may be spent. An example, that readily comes to mind, is money which constitutes trust money or funds held by the state (or its officers and agents) in a fiduciary capacity, or as a custodian. This would include money which, when received, belongs to someone or some entity other than the state. Certainly there is no prohibition in the law against a state acting in a fiduciary capacity and in that capacity discharging its sovereign functions, nor does anything prevent it from acting as a custodian, with respect to funds belonging to someone else. I believe, that upon careful consideration of Article 25 of Section 1 et seq. of *544 our State Constitution, together with 56 O.S.1961 § 178, the implementing legislation, it is reasonable to conclude that the State Assistance Fund is a trust fund, in the nature of a charitable trust, established and maintained by the State of Oklahoma for the purpose of relief for unidentified individuals who qualify as members of the broad, general classes of the public described in Section 1 of Article 25, supra. That group is there described as, “needy, aged persons who are unable to provide for themselves”. I am of the further opinion that a careful analysis of the gasoline tax act in question here, which appears as 68 O.S.Supp. 1968 §§ 501 through 528, will demonstrate that that portion of the tax thereby levied which is to be apportioned to the various counties and/or cities and towns of this state, in a certain and definite proportion, actually never becomes subject to the power of the Legislature once it is received; such funds are not to be spent by the state nor for its benefit (other than the incidental benefit to the state from the use of such money to maintain county highways and bridges). Such a tax was held valid in Pawnee County Excise Board v. Kurn (1940), 187 Okl. 110 , 101 P.2d 614 . Under these circumstances, as such money is received it is merely held by the state as custodian for the benefit of the ones to whom such funds must be allocated and distributed and by whom, and for whose direct benefit, the money is to be expended. Under my view of Article 5, Section 55, although I would exclude from its operation the State Assistance Fund and the monies designated by the above referred to tax act to be distributed to counties, cities and/or towns, I would include within its coverage other funds which, when received, are subject to disbursement for the exclusive benefit of the state and therefore, in every sense, constitute funds which belong to the state. This would include money collected under the above tax act which, when received, is to be credited to the Oklahoma Tax Commission Fund, or to the State Highway Construction and Maintenance Fund. The fact that because of Article 10, Section 19, Constitution, the money in the last two mentioned funds could not be spent for any purpose other than the purpose designated in the taxing act, does not permit us to disregard the clearly expressed time limitations of Article 5, Section 55, upon the expenditure of the funds. The constitutional provisions are not incompatible. Article 10, Section 19, refers to the purpose for which public money may be expended and Article 5, Section 55, refers to the time within which it may be spent. Both provisions are valuable protective measures and could be treated as fully effective. I respectfully dissent. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9536301. Public record. Not legal advice.