TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Warhurst v. Morgan

WARHURST v. MORGAN Et Al.

Warhurst v. Morgan, 1943 OK 269, 140 P.2d 236
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 3, 1943
Docket
No. 31019.
Judges
Corn, Gibson, Riley, Osborn, Bayless, Welch, Davison, Hurst, Arnold
Citations
140 P.2d 2361943 OK 269192 Okla. 6921943 Okla. LEXIS 285

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding was commenced by James A. Warhurst to prevent the payment of the salary of Ruth Morgan, Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor, for the reason that the 1919 statute creating the position was repealed by repeal bill, chap. 4A, Title 75, Okla. Session Laws 1941, p. 460. The trial court denied the injunction, and plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff made no application to stay the payment of the warrants for the salary for the preceding months or the months pending the appeal, and payment was made periodically as provided by the then existing law prior to the repeal. Following the adoption of the Senate Bill No. 99, effective April 12, 1943, adopting the Statutes of Oklahoma and providing that all general laws not therein contained should be repealed, the Legislature created the position of secretary to the Lieutenant Governor and the secretary is now serving in that capacity and has drawn warrants which are not contested in this proceeding or otherwise.

We are of the opinion, and hold, that the questions once presented to the trial court has become moot. If the warrants formerly paid were illegally paid, this proceeding is not the proper proceeding to determine that question. In Douglas v. Baker, 167 Okla. 348 , 29 P. 2d 619 , we stated that the Supreme Court will not attempt to determine abstract, hypothetical, or moot questions, but, where it is made to appear that the questions presented below have become moot, the proceeding on appeal will be dismissed. See Resler v. Green, 177 Okla. 499 , 61 P. 2d 191 ; Westgate Oil Co. v. Refiners Production Co., 172 Okla. 260 , 44 P. 2d 993 .

The appeal is dismissed.

*693 CORN, C.J., GIBSON, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. HURST and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.

How later courts describe this case

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

1958: 119582026peak 1958 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moore v. White1958 OK 59, 323 P.2d 352

Most recent

  1. Moore v. White1958 OK 59, 323 P.2d 352

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Westgate Oil Co. v. Refineries Prod. Co., 1935 OK 548, 44 P.2d 993 23
Douglas v. Baker, 1934 OK 1, 29 P.2d 573 11
James I. Barnes Const. Co. v. Hargrove, 1934 OK 12, 29 P.2d 619 10
Mercer v. McKeel, 1936 OK 556, 61 P.2d 191 4
Resler v. Green, 1936 OK 563, 61 P.2d 183 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