Title: CULLISON v. RINEY
Citation: 1949 OK 87, 201 Okla. 441, 206 P.2d 1143
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 3, 1949

CULLISON v. RINEY Annotate this Case CULLISON v. RINEY 1949 OK 87 206 P.2d 1143 201 Okla. 441 Case Number: 33832 Decided: 05/03/1949 Supreme Court of Oklahoma Syllabus ¶0 TAXATION - Sufficiency of evidence to sustain judgment. Whether the intangible tax has been paid is a question for the court and where the court's judgment is sustained by the evidence the same will not be reversed on appeal. Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; Leslie W. Lisle, Judge. Action by A.H. Riney against David A. Cullison on a contract to recover for rents. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Carter Smith, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error. Rosenstein, Fist & Shidler, of Tulsa, for defendant in error. JOHNSON, J. ¶1 Action by A.H. Riney to recover on a lease contract for rents. Judgment was for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. ¶2 In this appeal the correctness of the judgment as to the amount is not disputed. The single issue raised by the plaintiff in error is that the defendant in error failed in the trial court to allege and prove the listing for taxation and payment of intangible tax. It is not disputed that there was a listing of the intangible property and that such tax as was due was paid. The sole objection made in the trial court and in this court by the plaintiff in error is that the evidence offered on the witness stand by the defendant in error at the trial is not sufficient to establish the payment of such tax. ¶3 The record discloses that the plaintiff in error called the defendant in error as a witness and proved by oral testimony that the account had been listed for taxation and all intangible taxes assessed thereon had been paid. This evidence was given by the defendant in error without objection. ¶4 The authorities cited to support the contention that the evidence offered by the defendant in error was insufficient to establish the payment of such tax are not applicable to the facts in this case. ¶5 Affirmed. ¶6 DAVISON, C.J., and WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, HALLEY, and O'NEAL, JJ., concur.