TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Taylor v. Freeman

Taylor v. Freeman, 1919 OK 299, 184 P. 761
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 21, 1919
Docket
No. 10249
Judges
Owen, Pitchpokd, Meneill, Higgins, Bailey
Citations
184 P. 7611919 OK 29976 Okla. 2111919 Okla. LEXIS 159
Disposition
Denied.
Syllabus
(Syllabus by the Court.) Prohibition — Adequate Remedy at Law. Where an inferior court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties to an action, and an appeal will lie to the Supreme Court from the order of said inferior court, prohibition will not issue, though the trial court may make an erroneous application of the law in the determination of the issues therein.
Summary
Original petition for writ of prohibition by Joe T. Taylor against W. P. Preeman, judge of the Eighth judicial district, state of Oklahoma, sitting in Carter county.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Owen

OWEN, C. J.

Taylor filed an original petition in this court, praying writ of prohibition against Honorable W. P. Preeman, judge of the district court of Carter county, to prohibit such judge from granting or considering a motion for an order directing the county- clerk and secretary of the county election board to produce the records in their possession of an election held in certain precincts in Carter county, together with the ballot boxes and poll books of such election to be examined in open court, in an election contest pending in such court, and to which contest Taylor was a party.

The principal reasons urged for this writ of prohibition are: That the petition in the election contest failed to state a cause of action against Taylor; and that the district court was without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought to be obtained by the motion.

. It appearing the court had jurisdiction to try the election contest, and jurisdiction of the parties, the writ of prohibition must be denied under authority of Harrah v. Oldfield, 68 Oklahoma. 171 Pac. 333 , where it was said:

' “Where an inferior court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties to an action, and an appeal will lie to the Supreme Court from an order of said inferior court, prohibition will not issue, though the trial court may make an erroneous application of the law in the determination of the issues therein.”

The writ of prohibition is denied.

PITCHPOKD, MeNEILL, HIGGINS, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 21933: 11967: 119282026peak 1928 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jackson v. Haney1933 OK 459, 25 P.2d 771
  2. Jones v. Pugh1928 OK 317, 267 P. 272
  3. Baker v. Capshaw1928 OK 171, 265 P. 115
  4. Walker v. Smith ex rel. District Court of Oklahoma County1967 OK CR 60, 426 P.2d 375

Most recent

  1. Walker v. Smith ex rel. District Court of Oklahoma County1967 OK CR 60, 426 P.2d 375
  2. Jackson v. Haney1933 OK 459, 25 P.2d 771
  3. Jones v. Pugh1928 OK 317, 267 P. 272
  4. Baker v. Capshaw1928 OK 171, 265 P. 115

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Harrah v. Oldfield, 1918 OK 119, 171 P. 333 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list