Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pfrimmer v. Tidwell

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 12, 1950No. 33575Published

1DissentGibson, J.

I think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is obvious to me that the claim is unliquidated and consequently not subject to the provisions of the Intangible Tax Law. Watts v. Elmore, 198 Okla. 141, 176 P. 2d 220.

68 O. S. 1941 §1515, relating to pleadings in suits for collection of intangibles, provides in part “if such intangible property is not subject to such taxes he may so allege, stating the controlling facts upon which is based such allegation.” It occurs to me that the nontaxability of the intangibles need not be alleged totidem verbis, but the requirements of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Watts v. ElmoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
  2. Mead v. HellamsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API