TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Roland v. Board of Com'rs of Carter County

STATE Ex Rel. ROLAND Et Al. v. BOARD of COM’RS of CARTER COUNTY Et Al.

State ex rel. Roland v. Bd. of Com'rs of Carter Cnty., 1932 OK 594, 16 P.2d 104
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 6, 1932
Docket
No. 21043
Judges
Riley, Luster, Hefner, Oulliso'N, Andrews, McNeill, Kornegay, Clark, Swindall
Citations
16 P.2d 1041932 OK 594160 Okla. 2761932 Okla. LEXIS 760

Opinion of the Court — Riley

RILEY, J.

This action was brought by taxpayers against members of the board of county commissioners of Carter county and Clarence L. Boyd Company, as provided by sections 8590, 8591 C. O. S. 1921 [O. S. 1931, secs. 5964, 5965] The basis of the action is allowance of claim No. 545, on October 4, 1928, and payment of it on October 13, 1928.

*277 It was filed July 31, 1928. Likewise, allowance of claim No. 325, which was filed, allowed, and paid on the date as claim No. 545. Tliese claims were in amounts of $1,-967.25 and $589, respectively.

The taxpayers urge that the claims are and were at date of allowance illegal and void for the reason that at .the time of incurring the indebtedness represented thereby no funds were available to pay same. Said claims were for property and supplies furnished for the fiscal year 1928-29, but prior to approval by the excise board of the estimate for that fiscal year, and as a consequence there were no funds available to pay the claims at the time the supplies were furnished.

Plaintiffs offered evidence to show that the estimate of Carter county for the fiscal year 1928-29 was approved on September 12, 1928, and admission was made by defendants that warrants were issued paying the claims in question on October 13, 1928. Judgment below was for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

The question here involved is one of ratification. It was settled in Union School District No. 1, Kay County, v. Foster Lbr. Co., 142 Okla. 260 , 286 P. 774 .

The contention was settled adversely to plaintiffs in error’s contention in Consolidated School Dist. No. 2 v. Arlington School Supply Co., 148 Okla. 299 , 298 P. 1052 (May 5, 1931).

Judgment affirmed.

LUSTER, HEFNER, OULLISO'N, ANDREWS, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. CLARK, Y. O. J., and SWINDALL, J., absent.

How later courts describe this case

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

1935: 21936: 11938: 119352026peak 1935 · 2

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Union Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Foster Lbr. Co., 1930 OK 50, 286 P. 774 14
Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Arlington Sch. Supply Co., 1931 OK 216, 298 P. 1052 8

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