Turner v. Maxwell Inv. Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Turner v. Maxwell Inv. Co.

1917 OK 533, 168 P. 787, 67 Okla. 54, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 332

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 6, 1917

Docket7512

StatusPublished

This text of 1917 OK 533 (Turner v. Maxwell Inv. Co.) 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

Turner v. Maxwell Inv. Co., 1917 OK 533, 168 P. 787, 67 Okla. 54, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 332 (Okla. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, J.

This action was. brought by defendant in error, in the district court of Comanche county, for writ of mandamus to compel the plaintiff in error, as commissioner of finance of the city of Lawton, to certify to the county .treasurer for collection the unpaid installments due for certain pavement in the city of Lawton. The writ was awarded toy the trial court directing the commissioner to make the certification. To review the judgment the case was brought here by the commissioner.

Plaintiff in error in his brief urges two assignments in error, as follows: (a) That the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, (b) That the decision of the court is contrary to law.

It appears that defendant in error is the owner and holder of certain paving bonds delivered to the contractor for the paving in question. No contention is made as to any irregularity as to the proceedings of the city council and ordinance providing for the paving, the letting of the contract, or issuance of the paving bonds held toy the defendant in error. The controversy here arose by reason of the commissioner of finance certifying to the treasurer a less amount than that fixed by the appraisers and apportioned to the various lots within the paving district. The commissioner credited against the amounts fixed an amount which he insists a street railway company was liable for, the railway company having constructed its tracks on the paved street after the proceeding providing for the paving. The trial court held the duty of the commissioner to certify the assessment as made by .the appraisers to be purely ministerial and without any discretion in the commissioner as to reductions and credits. Under the holding of this court in the cases of City of El Reno v. Cleveland Trinidad Paving Co., 25 Okla. 648, 107 Pac. 163, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650, and Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Severns Paving Co., 67 Okla. —, 170 Pac. 216, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

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

OWEN, J.

This action was. brought by defendant in error, in the district court of Comanche county, for writ of mandamus to compel the plaintiff in error, as commissioner of finance of the city of Lawton, to certify to the county .treasurer for collection the unpaid installments due for certain pavement in the city of Lawton. The writ was awarded toy the trial court directing the commissioner to make the certification. To review the judgment the case was brought here by the commissioner.

Plaintiff in error in his brief urges two assignments in error, as follows: (a) That the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, (b) That the decision of the court is contrary to law.

It appears that defendant in error is the owner and holder of certain paving bonds delivered to the contractor for the paving in question. No contention is made as to any irregularity as to the proceedings of the city council and ordinance providing for the paving, the letting of the contract, or issuance of the paving bonds held toy the defendant in error. The controversy here arose by reason of the commissioner of finance certifying to the treasurer a less amount than that fixed by the appraisers and apportioned to the various lots within the paving district. The commissioner credited against the amounts fixed an amount which he insists a street railway company was liable for, the railway company having constructed its tracks on the paved street after the proceeding providing for the paving. The trial court held the duty of the commissioner to certify the assessment as made by .the appraisers to be purely ministerial and without any discretion in the commissioner as to reductions and credits. Under the holding of this court in the cases of City of El Reno v. Cleveland Trinidad Paving Co., 25 Okla. 648, 107 Pac. 163, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 650, and Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Severns Paving Co., 67 Okla. —, 170 Pac. 216, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK 533, 168 P. 787, 67 Okla. 54, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-maxwell-inv-co-okla-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack