Kreager v. McCormick

4 Citing cases

  1. Grier v. McCormick

    227 P. 400 (Okla. 1924)   Cited 7 times

    1. Municipal Corporations — Charter Powers — Enforcement of Paving Assessments. The question of jurisdiction of the trial court in this action and the powers of a city, organized and existing under a freeholders' charter, to regulate matters wholly within said city as to local improvements and assessments against property for payment of same, have been settled by decisions of this court in the following cases, which are hereby adopted: Berry v. McCormick, 91 Okla. 211, 217 P. 392; Kreager et al. v. McCormick, 74 Oklahoma, 182 P. 78; Partee v. Cleveland-Trinidad Paving Co., 70 Okla. 31, 172 P. 945; Nitsche v. State Security Bank of Zanesville, Ohio, et al., 69 Okla. 37, 170 P. 234; Berry v. Eureka Construction Co., 76 Okla. 146, 183 P. 517; Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22, 219 P. 117. 2.

  2. Rowe v. Rowe

    52 P.2d 869 (Okla. 1935)   Cited 4 times

    "A municipal corporation having adopted a charter from of government, as provided by law, may, under section 7, art. 10, of the Oklahoma Constitution and the provisions of its charter and ordinance enacted in pursuance thereof, levy and collect assessments for street improvements, and fix the amount thereof as a lien on abutting property in proportion to the accruing benefits regularly ascertained, and may issue and deliver to the contractor in payment of his claim for making such improvements written evidence of the amount thereof designated 'tax bills' and the same may be made to bear interest at 7 per sent. Per annum, and provide for the payment of a reasonable attorney's fee in case of legal proceedings to collect the same, and such certificate may be assigned and the lien which it evidences may be foreclosed by the assignee, and the property sold to satisfy the same." See, also, Berry v. McCormick, 91 Okla. 211, 217 P. 392; Kreager v. McCormick, 74 Okla. 302, 182 P. 78; Partee v. Cleveland-Trinidad Paving Co., 70 Okla. 31, 172 P. 945; Berry v. Eureka Construction Co., 76 Okla. 146, 183 P. 517; Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22, 223 P. 640; Grier v. McCormick, 100 Okla. 36, 227 P. 400. In the case of City of Tulsa et al. v. Weston et al., 102 Okla. 222, 229 P. 108, this court held:

  3. Colvin v. City of Tulsa

    247 P. 970 (Okla. 1926)   Cited 1 times

    The case of Berry v. McCormick, supra, is a case involving the assessment and collection and costs for street paving, and the court held that the city charter of the city of Tulsa regulating such matters was supreme, and had to be complied with in every particular, The case of Grier v. McCormick was another Tulsa case, and the court had this same question before it, and in the first syllabus they laid down the following rule: "The question of jurisdiction of the trial court in this action and the powers of a city, organized and existing under a freeholder's charter, to regulate matters wholly within said city as to local improvements and assessments against property for payment of same, have been settled by decisions of this court in the following cases, which are hereby adopted: Berry v. McCormick, 91 Okla. 211, 217 P. 392; Kreager et al. v. McCormick, 74 Okla. 302, 182 P. 78; Partee v. Trinidad Paving Co., 70 Okla. 31, 172 P. 945; Nitshe v. State Security Bank of Zanesville, Ohio, et al., 69 Okla. 37, 170 P. 234; Berry v. Eureka Construction Co., 76 Okla. 146, 183 P. 517; Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22, 223 P. 640." We think that the 10-day limitation provision of the charter of the city of Tulsa contained in sec. 14, art. 9, of Tulsa city charter is not unconstitutional. Having held that the 10-day statute of limitation contained in the city charter is constitutional, and in view of what we have said on the other question in the case, we are of the opinion that the cause of action set up in plaintiff's petition is barred by the statute of limitation, and that the court was right in sustaining the demurrer.

  4. Berry v. McCormick

    91 Okla. 211 (Okla. 1923)   Cited 14 times
    In Berry v. McCormick, 91 Okla. 211, 217 P. 392, it was held that the City of Tulsa could provide by ordinance for the collection of a special assessment on real property.

    Counsel for defendant contends that by virtue of section 643, and sections 7396 to 7415, inclusive, Revised Laws of Oklahoma, 1910, a complete and comprehensive system is provided whereby delinquent taxes shall be collected, and that the remedy thus provided is exclusive, and that therefore the district court of Tulsa county could not entertain a petition of a tax bill holder to enforce the collection of a paving tax lien issued against property to cover the costs of the street paving adjacent thereto by foreclosure and sale of said property. Counsel for plaintiff contend that under the authority of the cases of Nitsche v. State Security Bank, 69 Okla. 37, 170 P. 234, Kreager et al. v. McCormick, 74 Oklahoma, 182 P. 78, and Berry v. Eureka Construction Co., 76 Okla. 146, 183 P. 517, this question has been settled adversely to the contention of defendant, and that the same is no longer an open question in this jurisdiction. We have examined each of the cases referred to and are unable to agree with counsel for plaintiff that the question here presented has been foreclosed by the decisions in these cases.