Town of Covington v. Coberly
| Decision Date | 26 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 19008 |
| Citation | 275 P. 1064,136 Okla. 20,1929 OK 147 |
| Parties | TOWN OF COVINGTON et al. v. COBERLY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Appeal and Error -- Dismissal -- Abstract Questions.
"Abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical result can follow, will not be determined by this court." ( Albright et al. v. Erickson, 23 Okla. 544, 102 P. 112.)
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from District Court, Garfield County; Charles Swindall, Judge.
Action by W. L. Coberly against the Town of Covington and Earl W. Baker & Company for injunction. A permanent injunction was issued, and the defendants appealed. Appeal dismissed.
G. A. Paul and McKeever, Moore & Elam, for plaintiffs in error.
Curran, Sturgis & Hill, for defendant in error.
¶1 On October 19, 1926, the town of Covington, incorporated under the general laws of the state of Oklahoma, held an election at which was submitted the proposition of the issuance of $ 35,000 worth of bonds for the construction of a gas pipe line system in said town. The town was divided into three wards, but the county election board had designated only two election precincts in said town. The president of the board of trustees of the town, in calling said election, designated only two polling places in which the voters could cast their votes, one of them being in ward 1 and the other in ward 2. No polling place was designated for ward 3, and no election was held in said ward. The result of the election was 81 votes in favor of the bonds, and 57 votes against the bonds. The town having proceeded to issue and dispose of the bonds, and having, on October 18, 1927, entered into a contract with Earl W. Baker & Company to construct the gas pipe line, this action was begun on October 26, 1927, by W. L. Coberly, a resident taxpayer of Covington, to enjoin the town from issuing or negotiating said bonds and from carrying out said contract, and further to enjoin Earl W. Baker & Company, the contractor, from attempting to carry out its part of said contract. The trial court found that the election was void, and made the injunction permanent against the town and the contractor. From this judgment, both the town and the contractor appealed, but on July 19, 1928, by order of the board of trustees of the town, a written dismissal of the appeal as to the town was filed in this court, and thereafter a formal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace, Co. v. Mcclendon
...81, 155 P. 881; Drummond v. City of Ada, 86 Okla. 32, 206 P. 200; Arinwine v. Sawner, 112 Okla. 252, 240 P. 1042; Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20, 275 P. 1064; State ex rel. Freeman v. Champion, 92 Okla. 282, 219 P. 99; Parrish v. School District No. 19, 68 Okla. 42, 171 P. 461, ......
- Ingram v. Mccready
-
Emrick v. State Hwy. Comm'n
...must be used, so we do not deem it necessary to further discuss that issue in this case. ¶5 This court held in Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20, 275 P. 1064, that:"Abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief * * * will not be determined by this ......
-
Nunn v. Stewart
...limits. No actual relief could result to appellant from our examination of this question on certiorari. See Town of Covington v. Coberly, 136 Okla. 20, 275 P. 1064 (1929). The second issue raised by appellant, however, we find to be meritorious. The Court of Appeals, in regard to the questi......