U. S. Nat. Bank of Guthrie v. Logan County

Annotate this Case

U. S. Nat. Bank of Guthrie v. Logan County
1897 OK 124
51 P. 97
Decided: 09/02/1897
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma.

UNITED STATES NAT. BANK OF GUTHRIE
v.
LOGAN COUNTY

Rehearing denied.

Sept. 2, 1897.

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 This case is decided upon the principles announced in Gray v. Stiles (passed upon at this term)

John F. Stone and Herod, Widmer & Overstreet, for plaintiff in error.
Huston & Huston, for defendant in error.

McATEE, J.

¶1 This proceeding arose out of an action brought by the United States National Bank of Guthrie, in which a receiver had been appointed to take charge of all the property of the defendant below. During the pendency of the suit a motion was filed by the county attorney of Logan county, asking that the court order the receiver to pay all of the taxes that had been assessed against the bank property. The case was presented upon an agreed statement of facts, entered into between the attorneys for the receiver of the bank and the county attorney, upon which the court entered judgment which was not satisfactory to either party. Both parties appealed, and bring the record here.

¶2 One of the propositions submitted to the court, and upon which the court ruled, was that the entire tax for the year 1895 was valid. Error was assigned upon this by the plaintiff in error, upon the ground that the taxes for the year 1895 included an increase of 45 per cent. undertaken to be made by the territorial board of equalization, while sitting and acting under the authority given to it by section 5624 of the Statutes of Oklahoma of 1893, to equalize the taxes returned by the various county clerks of the territory to the auditor of the territory, and thereby 45 per cent. was added to the total assessment and valuation of property in the county of Logan, as found by the township assessors thereof. The question as thus presented has been heretofore passed upon at this term, in the case of Gray v. Stiles,

¶3 All the justice concur, except DALE, C. J., who presided below, and TARSNEY, J., who dissents.

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.