Colbert v. Roodhouse
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWilliams, Justice
(specially concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion because plaintiff’s petition shows on its face that it is barred by the statute of limitations, 12 O.S.1951 § 93. The trial court therefore properly sustained the demurrer to plaintiff’s petition. In my opinion that is all that needs to be said in this case. The majority opinion, however, goes ahead to determine that the land in question became taxable for the year 1930 and was taxable for the years 1939, 1940 and 1942, and further, that plaintiff is barred from maintaining this action…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. RickertSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Marcy v. Board of Commissioners of Seminole CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Zweigel v. WebsterDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 1940
- Board of County Com'rs of Marshall v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1945