St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Long

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Long

1926 OK 981, 251 P. 494, 122 Okla. 94, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 207

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 7, 1926

DocketNo. 17899

StatusPublished

This text of 1926 OK 981 (St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Long) 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

St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Long, 1926 OK 981, 251 P. 494, 122 Okla. 94, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 207 (Okla. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

This action was filed by the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company against Ora Long, county assessor, and Paul Prince, county treasurer, of Lincoln county, in the district court of Lincoln county, for an injunction under the provisions of State Question No. 141, Initiative Petition No. 92, adopted by a vote of the people at the regular primary election on August 3, 1926. The defendants filed their answer, challenging the constitutionality of such measure, which contention was by the court sustained and the cause dismissed, from which judgment the plaintiff appeals.

The questions involved in this case are identical with the questions involved in cause No. 17907, Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Ora Long, County Assessor, et al., opinion in which was this day filed, 122 Okla. 86, 251 P. 486, and upon the authorities therein cited we reach the same conclusion in this case as we reached in that, and the opinion, conclusions, and syllabus in that case are hereby adopted and applied to this case.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

BRANSON, V. C. J., and MASON, HARRISON, and CLARK, JJ., concur. NICHOLSON, C. J., and LESTER, J., concur in conclusion. HUNT and RILEY, JJ., dissent.

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

This action was filed by the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company against Ora Long, county assessor, and Paul Prince, county treasurer, of Lincoln county, in the district court of Lincoln county, for an injunction under the provisions of State Question No. 141, Initiative Petition No. 92, adopted by a vote of the people at the regular primary election on August 3, 1926. The defendants filed their answer, challenging the constitutionality of such measure, which contention was by the court sustained and the cause dismissed, from which judgment the plaintiff appeals.

The questions involved in this case are identical with the questions involved in cause No. 17907, Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Ora Long, County Assessor, et al., opinion in which was this day filed, 122 Okla. 86, 251 P. 486, and upon the authorities therein cited we reach the same conclusion in this case as we reached in that, and the opinion, conclusions, and syllabus in that case are hereby adopted and applied to this case.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

BRANSON, V. C. J., and MASON, HARRISON, and CLARK, JJ., concur. NICHOLSON, C. J., and LESTER, J., concur in conclusion. HUNT and RILEY, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK 981, 251 P. 494, 122 Okla. 94, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-s-f-ry-co-v-long-okla-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack