Stockton v. Excise Board of Payne County

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Stockton v. Excise Board of Payne County

1932 OK 137, 8 P.2d 57, 155 Okla. 120, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 87

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 16, 1932

Docket23276

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1932 OK 137 (Stockton v. Excise Board of Payne 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

Stockton v. Excise Board of Payne County, 1932 OK 137, 8 P.2d 57, 155 Okla. 120, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 87 (Okla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

HEFNER, J.

This is an original action in mandamus by Elze T. Stockton against the county excise board of Payne county, Okla., to compel it to approve an estimate for school teacher’s salary as certified to it bf the board of directors of school district No. 69, Payne county.

Plaintiff has a legal contract to teach school in school district No. 69 for the year 1931-1933. ,The board of directors certified an estimate in the sum of $800 for salary for its teacher for that year. The voters of the district, by a majority vote thereof at the annual school meeting held the last Tuesday of March, 1931, authorized an excess levy sufficient to meet the estimated needs of the district. The excise board reduced the estimate for teacher’s salary from $800 to $680, and refused to approve the estimate as certified to it by the directors of the district. It was its duty to approve the estimate as certified to it by the school district. See State ex rel. Board of Education v. Excise Board of Payne County, No. 23153, decided Jan. 26, 1932, 155 Okla. 227, 7 (2d) 473, and School Dist. No. 4, Garfield Co., v. Independent School Dist. No. 4½ Garfield County, 153 Okla. 171, 4 P. (2d) 1031.

Defendants contend plaintiff is not the real party in interest and cannot, in his own name, maintain this action. This question has been decided adversely to them in the case of Excise Board of Creek Co. v. State ex rel. Kissick, 105 Okla. 102, 231 P. 862. Under this authority, plaintiff can maintain this action.

.The writ is granted .

RILEY, OULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and McNBILL, JJ., concur. LESTER, O. J., concurs in the law as stated in syllabus No. 1, and dissents to syllabus No. 2. CLARK, Y. C. J., dissents for the reason that it is his opinion that under the contract the teacher cannot maintain this action. KORNEGAY, J., dissents.

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

HEFNER, J.

This is an original action in mandamus by Elze T. Stockton against the county excise board of Payne county, Okla., to compel it to approve an estimate for school teacher’s salary as certified to it bf the board of directors of school district No. 69, Payne county.

Plaintiff has a legal contract to teach school in school district No. 69 for the year 1931-1933. ,The board of directors certified an estimate in the sum of $800 for salary for its teacher for that year. The voters of the district, by a majority vote thereof at the annual school meeting held the last Tuesday of March, 1931, authorized an excess levy sufficient to meet the estimated needs of the district. The excise board reduced the estimate for teacher’s salary from $800 to $680, and refused to approve the estimate as certified to it by the directors of the district. It was its duty to approve the estimate as certified to it by the school district. See State ex rel. Board of Education v. Excise Board of Payne County, No. 23153, decided Jan. 26, 1932, 155 Okla. 227, 7 (2d) 473, and School Dist. No. 4, Garfield Co., v. Independent School Dist. No. 4½ Garfield County, 153 Okla. 171, 4 P. (2d) 1031.

Defendants contend plaintiff is not the real party in interest and cannot, in his own name, maintain this action. This question has been decided adversely to them in the case of Excise Board of Creek Co. v. State ex rel. Kissick, 105 Okla. 102, 231 P. 862. Under this authority, plaintiff can maintain this action.

.The writ is granted .

RILEY, OULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and McNBILL, JJ., concur. LESTER, O. J., concurs in the law as stated in syllabus No. 1, and dissents to syllabus No. 2. CLARK, Y. C. J., dissents for the reason that it is his opinion that under the contract the teacher cannot maintain this action. KORNEGAY, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK 137, 8 P.2d 57, 155 Okla. 120, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stockton-v-excise-board-of-payne-county-okla-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack