-
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice HURST herein. But lest the scope of the majority opinion be considered too broad, I point out that the Legislature did not purport to repeal the 1937 act levying the tax, thereby creating a surplus of funds on hand, nor did the Legislature purport to make a finding of the existence of a surplus in said fund not needed for the purpose originally intended. In either event, a different question would be presented for determination. See State ex rel. Sathre v. Hopton,
66 N.D. 313 ,265 N.W. 395 ; State v. Board of Com'rs of Butler County,77 Kan. 527 , 94 P. 1004; Whaley v. Commonwealth,110 Ky. 154 , 61 S.W. 35; State ex rel. Edwards v. Osborne,193 S.C. 158 ,7 S.E.2d 526 ; Tippecanoe County v. Lucas,93 U.S. 108 , 23 L. Ed. 822; State ex rel. Bell v. Cummings,130 Tenn. 566 , 172 S.W. 290, L. R. A. 1915D, 274; Fitzpatrick v. State Board of Examiners,105 Mont. 234 ,70 P.2d 285 ; Miller v. Henry,62 Or. 4 , 124 P. 197.
Document Info
Docket Number: No. 30446.
Citation Numbers: 127 P.2d 1052, 191 Okla. 155
Judges: HURST, J.
Filed Date: 6/30/1942
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023