# Statement Opposing Jurisdiction — Johnson Oil Refining Co. v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Mitchell

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0400%3A05

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Statement Opposing Jurisdiction
- **Published:** January 1, 1933
- **Citation:** 290 U.S. 158

## Text

¢ Pores re SR roi ar FLLED
| F :

FILE COPY ie - nah

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OCTOBER TERM, 1982 ae 2

' JOHNSON OIL REFINING COMPANY, Apreutawr,

vs.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex Ret. C. E.
MITCHELL, County - ATTORNEY OF PawNEE
County, OKLAHOMA, ET.AL.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA.

STATEMENT OPPOSING JURISDICTION AND
MOTION TO DISMISS.

é

' J. BERRY KING, ,
Attorney Generfl of Oklahoma, '
J F. M. DUDLEY, ° 7
W. T. CLEETON;
_ ED. WAITE CLARK,
Counsel for Appellees.

INDEX.

Supsect INDEX.

Statement opposing jurisdiction and motion to dismiss
Exhibit A. (Opinion of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma)

TABLE OF Cases CITED.

_ Alabama Railway Co. v. Bretete. 274 U. S. 76
_ Appleby v. New York, 271 U. S: 364
Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517......... iva enaones beeaus
Frick v. Pennsylvania, 268 U. S. 473... .:
Hanover Insurance Co. v. Harding, 272
Ireland v..Woods, 246 U. S. 323
Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 264 U. S. ‘30
Pullman ‘Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18..
—— & Loan Soc. v. Multnomah County, 169 U. S. 421,
t. Louis v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423 .
Ward & Gow ¥. Krinsky, 258 U. ae Riaialgialnaip om A

STATUTES. oan

ne Ghteheme Statutes of 1921, Section 9574
Constitution of the United States, 14th ~Amendment
Judicial Code, Section 237, as. amended (28 U. S. C. A; Section

wananwankanans

‘SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

A

| No. 843

JOHNSON OIL REFINING COMPANY, Apretiant,

& vs.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex Ret: C..E.
MITCHELL, County ATTORNEY oF PAWNEE
Case, OxLaHoma, BT AL,

on

| APPEAL ‘FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF .
. OKLAHOMA.

a0

sy «

, STATEMENT. OPPOSING JURISDICTION AND —
‘ MOTION TO DISMISS.

‘Maw pr vision vas Gul,

The appellee, i in support of its assertion of belief’
that the re exists in the above entitled case no grounds

°

of jurisdiction for review by this court, and also for

- grounds of dismissal, respectfully represents : a* 3

. Jurisdiction of review is sought td be established by |
-appellant, on the grounds of Section 237 of the Judi-

cial Code, as amended (28 U. S. ©. A‘, Sec. 344);
quoted under is ll of appellant’ s | statement, as fol-
lows: |

-

— — * %. oe én in question the

validity of a statute of any State, on the ground

- of - its being repugnant te the Constitution,

' treaties, or laws of the United States, and the |

decision is in favor of its validity, may be re-
. . viewed il the. Supreme Court upon a writ of
‘error.’ - |

'. The Oklahoma Statute asserted (unde&“‘B’’ of ap-

-. peliant’s statement) to have been drawn in question.
- on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitu-
‘tion of the United States is Section 9574, Compiled
Oklahoma Statutes of 1921, which ‘reads as follows: |

“All property in this state, whether real or

personal, including the property of corpora-

. tions, banks and bankers, except such as is ex-
empt, shall be subject to taxation.”’

Relief ‘under Section 237° of the Judicial “Code. iss

sought - upon the theory, as set out on pages six and

- seven of appellant’ s statement, that this Court. will ac-
_ cept the interpretation. placed upon the Oklahoma

statute by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma; and that

the Supreme -Court of the State of Oklahoma has in-. |
terpreted Seciion 9574, C. O-S. 1921, in such a manner

as to make it contravene the 14th Amendment of the

3

Constitution of the United States; thus giving this
Court jurisdiction. . | |

Under this doctrine, this Court is asked to ‘‘read
‘into the Statute’’ the interpretation of the. Oklahoma '
Supreme Court: ;

Citing Knights of Pythias: v. Meyer, 264 U.S.

30; Appleby v. New York,.271 U. S. 364; Ward

_ &-Gow v. Krinsky, 259 U. 8. 503; Hanover In-

surance Co. v. Harding, 272 U. S..494; Alabama

Railway Co. v. Kentucky, 274 U. 8. 76, and other
cases referred to but not’ discussed. ©

Under the cases cited by appellant to the effect that -
this Court will accept the State court’s interpretation
of a State statute, it is apparent that this Court will
Jook only to that iriterpretation, as shown by the deci-
sion of the State court. |

Inasmuch as this Court will not, for purposes of
determining jurisdiction, review the State court’s de- ’
termination as to the facts in the case, a review of con-
tentions in. the State court as to the:facts has no place
in this statement. ‘ ° so
. The Supreme Court, of Oklahoma, in its Qubdien of
. December 20, which is set out in full, attached hereto,
marked Exhibit ‘‘A’’, after reciting that no ad valorem
tax was paid on the cars in Hlinois, the domicile of the
~ Company, uses the following language: .

. “Section 9574, C. O. S. 1921 (C.°O. S. —,
Sec. 12317), provides:

‘¢¢ All property in this, state, whether real or.
personal, including the property of enn

o

tions, baaiie and bankers, except such as is ex-
empt, shall be subject to taxation.’ ._—_

‘ Est., 129 S. W. 1068. When this property is away .
. oh from that point it is in transit, but its destination is
always Cleveland, Pawnee County, Oklahoma. So this
property has acquired a: definite situs which takes it
out of ‘the general rule that personal property has its
taxable situs at the domicile of the owner. Gulf Ref.
Co. v. Tillinghast, 94 So. 418, 26 R. C. L. 273. Within
the terms of the statute these cars constitute “prop-
erty within this State’. They are merely temporarily
absent at times from the Cleveland refinery, and then
in transit for thé delivery of products at various
‘points. The entire number of tank cars are taxable = -
in Pawnee County. Williamson v. Prairie Cattle Co.,.
'. § Okla. 497. |
The judgments. of the County Court are affirmed.
There is no-law authorizing a tax based upon an
ty one asa oi of cars present on a given day at

any one taxable point, and there was no application of

that principle b dministrative officers. |
The judgment of the DistricfN’ourt is erroneous as
a matter of law. It is reversed-with directions to ren-
der judgment directing a listing for taxation of the
_———\entire_number of tank cars that have their base for
operations within Pawnee County -for- ‘the“years—in-__

. volved. ,

There is another case herewith presented and con-
sidered on oral argument.:- It comes from Osage

13

County and is styled and numbered, In the Matter of
Assessment of Omitted Property of Johnson Oil Refg.
Co., 23,334. Therein Osage County is claiming the

-gight to collect taxes upon 50 of the cars already con-\

sidered. The judgment therein was based upon an
“average number theory’’ and predicated upon the

presence of that number of these cars upon the rail- .

w

_

way siding in possession of the railroad, subject to.

-eall from the refinery at Cleveland. ‘In our opinion
- these cars did not have a permanent. abiding place
within Osage County and were not subject to taxation
_ elsewhere than in Pawnee County.”

The: judgment in that cause is reversed with direc-
tions to dismiss the action.
_ Clark, C. J., Herner, Cullison, Swindall, MeNeill,
Kornegay, JJ. concur. .
Lester, C. J., Andrews, J., absent. ¢ - oat

Swindall, J., on rehearing, not here attached, not yet

‘officially reported, but reported in 19 Pacific, 2d Series,

page 168. :

De aR IY

This opinion, together with dissenting opinion of .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0400%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.