The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1917-10-12
MARSHALL LOSES
IN FEDERAL COURT
MADlIL OIL AND COTTON COM
PANY AWARDED ss.7ss.5o IN
TAX SUIT.
COMO BANK CASE
John II. Wells. Of Purcell. Fails la De
fense Of Litigation Involving Stock Of
Failed Texas BanIs.--koozer Case Is
Disposed Of

Dt>pONtu VI.
The Madnl OH 4 Cotton company Is
TO recover s2,7Ss.50 from Marshall
county as the result OF It's suit i'm Fed
eral court. This decision was rendered
by Judge Ralph $. Campbell late yes.
terday.
In arriving at this conclusion, Judge
Campbell held that the court had Jnris-
diction in the case; that the property,
which was valued at its capital stock,
was only worth $4,000 net, including
the real estate. valued at si5.7i4oo. The
taxation of the latter was not involved.
40 there was left only sl4.206.eo to
taxed.
The amount allowed 10 he taxed on
this valuation was the county levy
limit of seven mills. the city levy limit
of five mills. and the school levy Of
9 Is mills. witch included the extra
y. This total tax amounted to $4355l,
as the company had paid $4,000, the
lfencc is ordered 10 be refunded
By the county.
Judge Campbell held that the county
levy Of eighty or more mills was ex-
cessive and not collectable. as was the
extra city levy. and that the latter
had not been properly levied. or If II
had, the record did not show It.
The evidence showed that the Madill
on & Cotton company was capitalized
at $6s,OoO and sold for s55,ooO, from
which an Indebtedness of $4,000 OF
more was TO be deducted, and that the
company lost $4,000 in 1915.
County Attorney Sneed secured. sus-
pension Of the execution of the order
could confer with the county commits.
sioners of Marshall county, to see
whether any further legal steps would
be taken to resist the refunding of the
tax collected.
Como Bank Case.
The next case taken up was that In
volving the failure of the First Ma.
tional Bank OF Como, Texas. An issue
of $500 stock was questioned.
On motion Of attorney for the plain
tiff. Judge Campbell instructed the jury
to return verdict in favor of plain
tiff i'm the sum of principal. S1.3l2.50
and interest S9S.35. total of sl.4l0.S5.
Previous to the failure of the bank
the capital stock was reduced from
$4,000 to $4,000. John II. Wells of
Purcell. Okla held 81 300 of the stock.
which when reduced amounted to about
$500. One Morris. the cashier, owed
Wells $3.50. which was secured by
$500 OF stock owned by Morris Nor
ris resigned about January I, 1916. isnd
soon after. according TO Wells, he re-
ceived $500 i'm stock issued in his name.
This, he later returned to the bank at
Como The stock however bore
date six months earlier than its re-
ceipt by Wells.
The comptroller of the United States
treasury ordered an assessment Of par
against the stockholders to pay the
iepositors of the defunct hank. Wells
refused to pay on the $500 stock sent
him by Morris. but offered 10 pay his
on the $500.
The suit is against Wells for this
on the $500. 1t was jury
rial. and the following were sworn: c
w. Cross. p. Watson. J. NJ. Kincade.
Il. A. kembel, C. T. Reno. Grant Bow
len. James Cruce. +. w. Hulen, c. T.
Williams. c. c. Helm, w. l. Galloway.
Judgment State Court Sustained
In the case Of Chas. III. Koozer VS..
Mary Koozer. an action for ejectment,
kooZer had made a deed to his father |
,efore he had a legal right to do so.
Later, he married and his wife sued
or divorce and alimony. To get his
wife to dismiss the divorce suit and !
n settlement Of alimony. Koozer agreed |
o have his father execute a deed to /.
lis wife to the land in question. pre- |
ending to his wife that the deed was |
'alid. The wife accepted the PROPOSE !
ion and entered into possession of the |
and. Later. Charles III. koozer made !
mother deed to the land and attempted ,
by eiectment suit in Mel
district court. That court held !
hat he was estopped from any action
nd ordered that he make deed to
lis wife for the land. and in case he |
il 1ol 40 80 Tue bfutl VI lilt toult Il
would suffice as a deed. the court hold
ng that title to the land passed in |
he agreement made between Charles II. |
loozer and his wife. I'm dismissal of /
ivorce and dismissal of alimony. Judge /
held this view OF the case and |
ustainod the decision of the McCurtain /
ouniy district court
Tho land in controversy is worth !
bout 80 0O0. II was the surplus al I
pirneht OF Charles II. Koozer. one !,
ighth Choctaw citizen. At the time he |
nado the deed to his father. his re- |
tric;ions had not been removed. and |
therefore, the deed was invalid.
.At the time koozer made the agree |
nent with his wife his restrictions had |
'een removed.
The petit jury was excused this af- |
ernoon unth Monday morning at 10 |