Opinion
No. 22245
Opinion Filed February 2, 1932.
(Syllabus.)
1. Statutes — Invalidity of Act Which Arbitrarily Exempts Certain Counties from Operation of General Laws.
Where an act of the Legislature excepts from the operation of the general laws of this state one or more counties without any fixed basis for such discrimination and no good reason is shown why all should not be subject to the same rule, it is invalid under section 59, art. 5, of the State Constitution, which provides that laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the state.
2. Same — Law Fixing Salaries of Commissioners of Counties According to Designated Populations Held Unconstitutional.
Chapter 78, Session Laws 1921 (section 6430, C. O. S. 1921) is arbitrary; there is no reason or basis therefor; it is in violation of the provisions of section 59, art. 5 of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and is unconstitutional and void.
3. Same — Counties — Tax Levy for Salaries of County Commissioners Held Excessive.
Record examined, and held to support the judgment of the Court of Tax Review.
Appeal from Court of Tax Review; Harve L. Melton, Hal Johnson, and Tom G. Chambers, Judges.
Protest by the Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company against certain tax levy by the Excise Board of Kay County sustained, and protestee appeals. Affirmed.
Bruce Potter, Co. Atty., for plaintiff in error.
W.R. Bleakmore, W.L. Farmer, John Barry, and Robert E. Lee, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Tax Review in favor of the protestant, Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company, and against the excise board of Kay county, Okla., involving appropriations and levies made by the excise board of Kay county for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1931.
The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed that the decision of this court in cause No. 22128, Caddo County, Oklahoma, Company (this day rendered) 155 Okla. 32, 7 P.2d 900, shall be controlling herein. Pursuant to that stipulation, the law as announced in that case is applied and, pursuant thereto, the judgment of the Court of Tax Review is affirmed.
LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and RILEY, HEFNER, CULLISON, SWINDALL, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur.