Board of Comrs. Custer Co. v. De Lana

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Board of Comrs. Custer Co. v. De Lana

1899 OK 3, 57 P. 162, 8 Okla. 213, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 49

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 11, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 1899 OK 3 (Board of Comrs. Custer Co. v. De Lana) 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

Board of Comrs. Custer Co. v. De Lana, 1899 OK 3, 57 P. 162, 8 Okla. 213, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 49 (Okla. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Haiñer, J.:

This was an action brought in the district court of Custer county by the defendant in error, plaintiff in the court below, against the board of county commissioners of Custer county, to recover a judgment against said county for the sum of $1,200, and interest thereon on certain county warrants. The county pleaded as a defense to the action that it was indebted beyond the federal limit at the time the indebtedness was in *215 curred and warrants were issued. T'o the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff filed a reply. containing a general denial. Upon the issues thus joined, the case was tried by the court on change of venue in Canadian county by agreement of the parties. It appears from the record that judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $935.22 and costs of the action. To which ruling of the court, the defendant duly excepted. A motion for a. new trial was considered filed, and overruled by the - court, to which ruling the defendant excepted at the time, and brings the -cause here on a case-made to be reviewed by this court.

It is a well settled principle, of law in this class of cases that it is presumed that, where the officers of a municipality issue their obligations, such obligations are issued for lawful corporate purposes, and that they acted clearly within the scope of their powers-. It is also a well-settled principle of law governing this class of eases that where a municipality seeks to avoid the payment of its obligations on the. ground that, at the time the d'ebts were incurred and the -obligations issued, the municipality was indebted beyond the constitutional or federal limit, the burden of proof is upon th-e municipality to establish such facts. Hence, upon the issues 'thus joined in this case, the general findings of the court and conclusions of law thereon depended upon the evidence introduced upon the trial of the cause; and, as the case-made fails to show that it contains all the evidence introduced and dffered upon the trial of the cause, we cannot say, in the absence of a complete record, that the court committed prejudicial er-ror in- its findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon. In other words, we are *216 unable to review the errors assigned by the plaintiff in error in this court.

This case comes clearly within the rule laid down in the case of Board v. Hubble, this volume, p. 169, 56 Pac. 1058, and authorities there cited. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.

Tansney, J., having presided in the court below, and Burford, C. J., having been of counsel, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

Haiñer, J.:

This was an action brought in the district court of Custer county by the defendant in error, plaintiff in the court below, against the board of county commissioners of Custer county, to recover a judgment against said county for the sum of $1,200, and interest thereon on certain county warrants. The county pleaded as a defense to the action that it was indebted beyond the federal limit at the time the indebtedness was in *215 curred and warrants were issued. T'o the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff filed a reply. containing a general denial. Upon the issues thus joined, the case was tried by the court on change of venue in Canadian county by agreement of the parties. It appears from the record that judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $935.22 and costs of the action. To which ruling of the court, the defendant duly excepted. A motion for a. new trial was considered filed, and overruled by the - court, to which ruling the defendant excepted at the time, and brings the -cause here on a case-made to be reviewed by this court.

It is a well settled principle, of law in this class of cases that it is presumed that, where the officers of a municipality issue their obligations, such obligations are issued for lawful corporate purposes, and that they acted clearly within the scope of their powers-. It is also a well-settled principle of law governing this class of eases that where a municipality seeks to avoid the payment of its obligations on the. ground that, at the time the d'ebts were incurred and the -obligations issued, the municipality was indebted beyond the constitutional or federal limit, the burden of proof is upon th-e municipality to establish such facts. Hence, upon the issues 'thus joined in this case, the general findings of the court and conclusions of law thereon depended upon the evidence introduced upon the trial of the cause; and, as the case-made fails to show that it contains all the evidence introduced and dffered upon the trial of the cause, we cannot say, in the absence of a complete record, that the court committed prejudicial er-ror in- its findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon. In other words, we are *216 unable to review the errors assigned by the plaintiff in error in this court.

This case comes clearly within the rule laid down in the case of Board v. Hubble, this volume, p. 169, 56 Pac. 1058, and authorities there cited. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.

Tansney, J., having presided in the court below, and Burford, C. J., having been of counsel, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1899 OK 3, 57 P. 162, 8 Okla. 213, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-comrs-custer-co-v-de-lana-okla-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack