St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Forbes
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
LOGSDON, C.
Plaintiff’s numerous assignments of error are presented in its brief under three propositions substantially as follows; First, that the trial court erred in susiaining the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff’s evidence relating to illegal levies for county purposes; second, that the trial court erred in sustaining sijd demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence relating to the general fund levy for Cyril City; third, that the trial court likewise erred in sustaining said demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence relating to the sinking fund levy- for Cyril City.
The county tax levy included…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. McIntoshSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. HaworthSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. AmendSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Board of Com'rs of Oklahoma Co. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- Payne v. RossSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
3Cited by5 opinions
- C. D. Coggeshall & Co. v. SmileySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Jones v. BlaineSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Washington CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Rogge v. Petroleum CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1938
- Protest of St. Louis-S. F. Ry. C.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933