Butterly v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin County

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Butterly v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin County

1932 OK 389, 11 P.2d 510, 157 Okla. 161, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 830

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 17, 1932

Docket22318

StatusPublished

This text of 1932 OK 389 (Butterly v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin County) 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

Butterly v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin County, 1932 OK 389, 11 P.2d 510, 157 Okla. 161, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 830 (Okla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

McNEILL, J.

This case presents substantially the same question as decided this day, by this court, in the case of Hoover et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Garvin County (No. 22317), 157 Okla. 225, 13 P. (2nd) 207; the essential difference 'being that the plaintiffs reside outside of the drainage district, owning property between .the mouth of the drainage ditch and the Washita river.

Plaintiffs allege in their petition that the digging, straightening, and deepening of the channel of Wild Horse creek through drainage district, No. 2, and emptying the waters back into' said creek, which creek thereafter flows through the lands of plaintiffs, will result to their detriment and damage on account of the acceleration of the flow of said waters and the overflowing of same over and across their lands. Plaintiffs pray that the board of county commissioners of Garvin county, acting as drainage commissioners, be enjoined and restrained from letting a contract for the construction of said ditch, or proceeding- in any way with said ditch, or changing of the water course, and for all other proper and equitable relief. The court sustained a demurrer of defendant to plaintiffs’ petition, and the sole and only question for determination is whether or not the court committed error in sustaining said demurrer. We consider it unnecessary to discuss the contentions raised by plaintiffs. The case of Carson v. Oklahoma Dredging Co., 152 Okla. 147, 4 P. (2d) 71, is decisive and controlling on the questions herein involved. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY, KEENER, CULLISON, SWIN-DALL, ANDREWS, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. LESTER, G. J., and OLARK, Y. C. J., absent.

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

McNEILL, J.

This case presents substantially the same question as decided this day, by this court, in the case of Hoover et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Garvin County (No. 22317), 157 Okla. 225, 13 P. (2nd) 207; the essential difference 'being that the plaintiffs reside outside of the drainage district, owning property between .the mouth of the drainage ditch and the Washita river.

Plaintiffs allege in their petition that the digging, straightening, and deepening of the channel of Wild Horse creek through drainage district, No. 2, and emptying the waters back into' said creek, which creek thereafter flows through the lands of plaintiffs, will result to their detriment and damage on account of the acceleration of the flow of said waters and the overflowing of same over and across their lands. Plaintiffs pray that the board of county commissioners of Garvin county, acting as drainage commissioners, be enjoined and restrained from letting a contract for the construction of said ditch, or proceeding- in any way with said ditch, or changing of the water course, and for all other proper and equitable relief. The court sustained a demurrer of defendant to plaintiffs’ petition, and the sole and only question for determination is whether or not the court committed error in sustaining said demurrer. We consider it unnecessary to discuss the contentions raised by plaintiffs. The case of Carson v. Oklahoma Dredging Co., 152 Okla. 147, 4 P. (2d) 71, is decisive and controlling on the questions herein involved. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY, KEENER, CULLISON, SWIN-DALL, ANDREWS, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. LESTER, G. J., and OLARK, Y. C. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK 389, 11 P.2d 510, 157 Okla. 161, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butterly-v-board-of-comrs-of-garvin-county-okla-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack