Mendelson v. Zilar

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Mendelson v. Zilar

1925 OK 606, 238 P. 425, 113 Okla. 77, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 883

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 14, 1925

Docket16138

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK 606 (Mendelson v. Zilar) 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

Mendelson v. Zilar, 1925 OK 606, 238 P. 425, 113 Okla. 77, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 883 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a mandamus action brought in the district court of Ottawa county., by the plaintiff in error, to compel the defendant in error, county assessor of that county, to transfer on the tax book certain property assessed for taxation in Quapaw township to the incorporated town of Cardin. The writ of mandamus was denied, and plaintiff in error appealed.

*78 It is contended that the term of office of the defendant in error expired on the 31st day of December, 1924, and there being no revivor against his successor, the action has abated. The ease was tried on the 24th day of December, 1924, and motion for a new trial overruled on the same day. On the 31st day of January, 1925, case-made was settled and signed by the trial judge. The time in which the case might be revived has not expired, but plaintiff in error having had 30 days in which to revive against the successor of defendant in error in the trial court, and not having done so, the appeal is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a mandamus action brought in the district court of Ottawa county., by the plaintiff in error, to compel the defendant in error, county assessor of that county, to transfer on the tax book certain property assessed for taxation in Quapaw township to the incorporated town of Cardin. The writ of mandamus was denied, and plaintiff in error appealed.

*78 It is contended that the term of office of the defendant in error expired on the 31st day of December, 1924, and there being no revivor against his successor, the action has abated. The ease was tried on the 24th day of December, 1924, and motion for a new trial overruled on the same day. On the 31st day of January, 1925, case-made was settled and signed by the trial judge. The time in which the case might be revived has not expired, but plaintiff in error having had 30 days in which to revive against the successor of defendant in error in the trial court, and not having done so, the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 606, 238 P. 425, 113 Okla. 77, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendelson-v-zilar-okla-1925.