Bd. of Directors of Harper Twp. v. Bd. of Com'rs.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bd. of Directors of Harper Twp. v. Bd. of Com'rs.

1928 OK 676, 272 P. 374, 134 Okla. 118, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 812

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 27, 1928

Docket18407

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1928 OK 676 (Bd. of Directors of Harper Twp. v. Bd. of Com'rs.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bd. of Directors of Harper Twp. v. Bd. of Com'rs., 1928 OK 676, 272 P. 374, 134 Okla. 118, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 812 (Okla. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

RILEY, J.

The township board of Harper township, Dewey county, refused to deliver to the board of county commissioners of Dewey county the money and property belonging to said township, as they were required to do under the provisions of section 6, ch. 107, S. L. 1927. The township officers maintained that the act of the Legislature (abolishing township officers, etc.) was unconstitutional.

The Attorney General, pursuant to Instructions from the Governor, filed an application in the court below in the name of the board of county commissioners of Dewey county for a writ of mandamus to compel compliance with the act of the Legislature. Thte trial court granted and issued its peremptory writ of mandamus to compel compliance on thle part of the township board. The township board superseded the judgment and perfected its appeal.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to dismiss the application undter the authority of Hudgins v. Foster, 131 Okla. 90, 267 Pac. 645. The syllabus in that case is adopted for the purposes of this opinion.

BRANSON, O. J., MASON, Y. C. J., and LESTER, HUNT, CLARK, and HEFNER JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI