Bd. of Ed v. Liberty Nat. Bank

Decision Date15 October 1946
Docket NumberCase Number: 32164
PartiesBOARD OF ED., CITY OF WILSON v. LIBERTY NAT. BANK, Adm'r.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-Municipal warrant prima facie evidence of validity of debt.

A municipal warrant is prima facie evidence of the validity of the claim for which it was issued, and if in an action instituted by the owner and holder thereof, the municipality asserts as a defense a violation of some constitutional or statutory provision, the burden of proof is upon the municipality to clearly establish by competent evidence that at the time the debt was created, for which said warrants were issued, the governing body of the municipality violated the provision of the Constitution or section of the statute relied upon.

2. SAME-Burden on defending municipality to show material omission or violation of law in issuance of warrant.

In order to defeat the warrant there must be shown a material omission or violation of the law affecting substantially the material rights of the county or suostantially affecting the fiscal policy of the state as declared by the statutes in such manner as to cause grave possibility or probability of financial mismanagement.

Appeal from District Court, Carter County; John C. Caldwell, Judge.

Action by Fred C. Switzer against the Board of Education of the City of Wilson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. Upon death of plaintiff, the Liberty National Bank of Oklahoma City, administrator with will annexed, was substituted as party plaintiff. Affirmed.

N. E. Ticer, of Wilson, and E. W. Schenk, of Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

Champion & Fischl, of Ardmore, and J. Berry King and George J. Fagin, both of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

BAYLESS,J.

¶1 Fred C. Switzer, claiming to be the owner of six warrants issued by the board of education of the city of Wilson, Carter county, Okla., brought an action against that municipality to enforce payment of the described warrants. The case was tried to the district judge without a jury and the board appeals from a judgment in favor of Switzer.

¶2 Subsequently, Switzer died and the Liberty National Bank of Oklahoma City, Okla., administrator with will annexed, was substituted as party plaintiff in lieu of Switzer. A motion to dismiss the appeal, based upon the rule announced in Barrick v. Smith, 77 Okla. 163, 187 P. 199, and Dixon v. Wright, 177 Okla. 191, 58 P. 2d 114, was filed, but upon consideration thereof the court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to the right to reconsider the matter further. Upon consideration of the merits of the action the court is of the opinion that there is no occasion to consider further the motion to dismiss, and we therefore proceed with a discussion of the merits of the action.

¶3 The record shows that the warrants sued upon are regular on their face. They were drawn against the general fund at a time when there remained a sum of money unexpended and unencumbered sufficient to pay the warrants. They were issued during the fiscal year of 1938-39. It appears, however, that these funds were spent for other purposes thereafter and, at the time these warrants were presented, no money was available to pay them. When the periodic audit was made, it was decided to refuse payment of these warrants on the ground they were intentionally...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT