Hough v. City of Tulsa

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hough v. City of Tulsa

1926 OK 497, 247 P. 972, 118 Okla. 211, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 874

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 25, 1926

Docket13727

StatusPublished

This text of 1926 OK 497 (Hough v. City of Tulsa) 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

Hough v. City of Tulsa, 1926 OK 497, 247 P. 972, 118 Okla. 211, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 874 (Okla. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

MAXEX, 0.

This ease involves the sarnie questions as the case of Colvin et al. against City of Tulsa et al., No. 13727, which is a companion case to No. 13726, this day decided, (ante, p. 209). This case, as in the Colvin Case, is a suit to enjoin the city of Tulsa from making certain improvements in the way of paving, curbing, etc., in ihe city of Tulsa. A demurrer was sustained by the trial court tol the petition, on the ground that the case was barred by the statute of limitation ; and in the Colvin Case we sustain the judgment of the trial court' and affirmed the case. The same argument and citations of authorities in that case are applicable to this case, and on the autlidrity of that case, this case is also affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

MAXEX, 0.

This ease involves the sarnie questions as the case of Colvin et al. against City of Tulsa et al., No. 13727, which is a companion case to No. 13726, this day decided, (ante, p. 209). This case, as in the Colvin Case, is a suit to enjoin the city of Tulsa from making certain improvements in the way of paving, curbing, etc., in ihe city of Tulsa. A demurrer was sustained by the trial court tol the petition, on the ground that the case was barred by the statute of limitation ; and in the Colvin Case we sustain the judgment of the trial court' and affirmed the case. The same argument and citations of authorities in that case are applicable to this case, and on the autlidrity of that case, this case is also affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK 497, 247 P. 972, 118 Okla. 211, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hough-v-city-of-tulsa-okla-1926.