TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State Banking Board v. Oklahoma Bankers' Trust Co.

STATE BANKING BOARD Et Al. v. OKLAHOMA BANKERS’ TRUST CO.

State Banking Bd. v. Okla. Bankers' Trust Co., 1915 OK 103, 164 P. 660
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 16, 1915
Docket
No. 6205
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
164 P. 6601915 OK 10363 Okla. 2601915 Okla. LEXIS 1334
Disposition
Reversed and dismissed.
Syllabus
(Syllabus by the Court.) States — ‘‘Suit Against the State” — Consent. A suit to mandamus the state banking board is a “suit against the state.”
Summary
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Geo. W. Clark, Judge. Mandamus by the Oklahoma Bankers’ Trust Company against the State Banking Board of the State of Oklahoma and J. C. McClelland and another, members of the board, and J. D. Lankford. Peremptory writ of mandamus issued, and defendants ■bring error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an action in mandamus to compel the banking board of the state of Oklahoma to pay to the Oklahoma Bankers’ Trust Company $10.266.67, the amount of its deposit in the Alamo State Bank of Muskogee, Okla., at the time of its failure. The suit was filed in the district court of Oklahoma County on the 19th day of February, 1912, and the alternative writ of mandamus was issued on the same date.

After answer to the alternative writ, there was trial, and judgment making the writ peremptory, and defendant, the banking board, -brings the case here. For the reason that this is a suit against the state, the trial court was wrong in letting the writ go. This ca-se is governed by J. D. Lankford et al., Composing the State Banking Board, etc., v. Platte Iron Works Co., 225 U. S. 461 , 35 Sup. Ct. 173, 59 L. Ed. 316 . See, also, State ex rel. Taylor v. Cockrell, 27 Okla. 630 , 112 Pac. 1000 ; Chas. W. Lovett et al. v. J. D. Lankford et al., 47 Okla. 12 , 145 Pac. 767 .

Reversed and dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1927: 11933: 11938: 119272026peak 1927 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Leslie v. Johnson24 F. Supp. 406 (W.D. Okla. 1938)
  2. Wenner v. Mothersead264 P. 816 (Okla. 1927)
  3. Wentz v. Potter1933 OK 655, 28 P.2d 562

Most recent

  1. Leslie v. Johnson24 F. Supp. 406 (W.D. Okla. 1938)
  2. Wentz v. Potter1933 OK 655, 28 P.2d 562
  3. Wenner v. Mothersead264 P. 816 (Okla. 1927)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
State ex rel. Taylor v. Cockrell, 1910 OK 374, 112 P. 1000 27
Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co., 235 U.S. 461 (1915) 69
Lovett, Creek Cnty. Com'rs v. Lankford, 1914 OK 458, 145 P. 767 30

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