Board of Com'rs v. City Nat. Bank of Ft. Smith

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Board of Com'rs v. City Nat. Bank of Ft. Smith

1938 OK 398, 80 P.2d 627, 183 Okla. 137, 1938 Okla. LEXIS 201

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 14, 1938

DocketNo. 28389.

StatusPublished

This text of 1938 OK 398 (Board of Com'rs v. City Nat. Bank of Ft. Smith) 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 Com'rs v. City Nat. Bank of Ft. Smith, 1938 OK 398, 80 P.2d 627, 183 Okla. 137, 1938 Okla. LEXIS 201 (Okla. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

HURST, J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment; against the “board of county commissioners *138 of Pushmataha county” for violation of a garnishment order, on the ground that monies were paid to the defendant by said board., after it had been served witli the garnishment order. The garnishee appeals.

The judgment, being against the “board of county commissioners,” is a judgment against the county. (Section 7384, O. S. 1931, 19 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 4.)

Section 613, O. S. 1931, which is part of the law governing garnishment proceedings against the state and other municipal subdivisions of the government, provides, in part, that “no judgment shall be rendered against the state, or any county, city, town, board of education, school board or any municipal subdivision of the state under the provisions of this act.-’ The statute is plain and unambiguous. Thus the law which grants the right of garnishment against a county expressly denies the court jurisdiction to render a judgment against the county in garnishment cases. Section 628, O. S. 1931, which makes the garnishee liable to the plaintiff, under certain circumstances, does not apply to counties, under the express language of section 613, supra.

We do not have before us, and consequently do not determine, the question of •whether the individual members of the board of county commissioners and their bondsmen would be liable for the acts complained of.

It is not necessary for us to pass upon the other grounds for reversal urged by.the county.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to vacate the same against the county, and to proceed not inconsistently with the views herein expressed.

BAYLESS, Y. C. J., and RILEY, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

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

HURST, J.

Plaintiff recovered judgment; against the “board of county commissioners *138 of Pushmataha county” for violation of a garnishment order, on the ground that monies were paid to the defendant by said board., after it had been served witli the garnishment order. The garnishee appeals.

The judgment, being against the “board of county commissioners,” is a judgment against the county. (Section 7384, O. S. 1931, 19 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 4.)

Section 613, O. S. 1931, which is part of the law governing garnishment proceedings against the state and other municipal subdivisions of the government, provides, in part, that “no judgment shall be rendered against the state, or any county, city, town, board of education, school board or any municipal subdivision of the state under the provisions of this act.-’ The statute is plain and unambiguous. Thus the law which grants the right of garnishment against a county expressly denies the court jurisdiction to render a judgment against the county in garnishment cases. Section 628, O. S. 1931, which makes the garnishee liable to the plaintiff, under certain circumstances, does not apply to counties, under the express language of section 613, supra.

We do not have before us, and consequently do not determine, the question of •whether the individual members of the board of county commissioners and their bondsmen would be liable for the acts complained of.

It is not necessary for us to pass upon the other grounds for reversal urged by.the county.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to vacate the same against the county, and to proceed not inconsistently with the views herein expressed.

BAYLESS, Y. C. J., and RILEY, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1938 OK 398, 80 P.2d 627, 183 Okla. 137, 1938 Okla. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-comrs-v-city-nat-bank-of-ft-smith-okla-1938.