City of Ardmore Ex Rel. Dyer v. Holt

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

City of Ardmore Ex Rel. Dyer v. Holt

1944 OK 303, 153 P.2d 228, 194 Okla. 486, 1944 Okla. LEXIS 508

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 14, 1944

DocketNo. 31065.

StatusPublished

This text of 1944 OK 303 (City of Ardmore Ex Rel. Dyer v. Holt) 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

City of Ardmore Ex Rel. Dyer v. Holt, 1944 OK 303, 153 P.2d 228, 194 Okla. 486, 1944 Okla. LEXIS 508 (Okla. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

BAYLESS, J.

This appeal involves the correctness of the judgment of the district court of Carter county holding that city of Ardmore, on relation of the bondholders of a certain street improvement district, could not foreclose the lien of the delinquent assessments levied to pay said bonds because the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

The parties, agree that the street improvement district was created in 1922; that the bonds were issued in August, 1922; that they matured in 1931, coincident with the due date of the tenth annual installment due on the assessments; that there was a delinquency on the assessments at that time and at all times since; and that this action was filed in October, 1940.

The. parties have not raised or discussed the right to foreclose such a lien created prior to the enactment of chapter 173, S. L. 1923, under that act. Assuming, without deciding, that such a right exists, we are of the opinion that the action was barred by the statute of limitations at the time it was filed. The rule in City of Bristow v. Groom, 194 Okla. 384, 151 P. 2d 936, controls this issue. It is not necessary to restate here what we said in that decision. The three-year period of limitation, 12 O. S. 1941 §95 (2), began to run twelve months after the due date of the last installment, and had run when the action was filed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

CORN, C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, WELCH, HURST, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. GIBSON, V.C.J., dissents.

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

BAYLESS, J.

This appeal involves the correctness of the judgment of the district court of Carter county holding that city of Ardmore, on relation of the bondholders of a certain street improvement district, could not foreclose the lien of the delinquent assessments levied to pay said bonds because the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

The parties, agree that the street improvement district was created in 1922; that the bonds were issued in August, 1922; that they matured in 1931, coincident with the due date of the tenth annual installment due on the assessments; that there was a delinquency on the assessments at that time and at all times since; and that this action was filed in October, 1940.

The. parties have not raised or discussed the right to foreclose such a lien created prior to the enactment of chapter 173, S. L. 1923, under that act. Assuming, without deciding, that such a right exists, we are of the opinion that the action was barred by the statute of limitations at the time it was filed. The rule in City of Bristow v. Groom, 194 Okla. 384, 151 P. 2d 936, controls this issue. It is not necessary to restate here what we said in that decision. The three-year period of limitation, 12 O. S. 1941 §95 (2), began to run twelve months after the due date of the last installment, and had run when the action was filed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

CORN, C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, WELCH, HURST, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. GIBSON, V.C.J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1944 OK 303, 153 P.2d 228, 194 Okla. 486, 1944 Okla. LEXIS 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-ardmore-ex-rel-dyer-v-holt-okla-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack