Case ID: okla_150/html/0092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KOKNEGAY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GANT et al. v. OKLAHOMA CITY et al.
    No. 21799.
    Opinion Filed May 12, 1931.
    Rehearing Denied June 30, 1931.
    Twyford & Smith and Womack, Brown & Cund, for plaintiffs in error.
    M. W. McKenzie, Municipal Counselor, and A. L. Hull, Asst. Municipal Counselor, for defendants in error.
   KOKNEGAY, J.

This is a companion case to the ease of Walter H. Gant, Knox L. Garvin, and A. D. Hudspeth, Plaintiffs in Error., v. City of Oklahoma City et al., Defendants in Error, No. 21798, this day decided, 150 Okla. 86,_Pac. —, the difference being that the locality is slightly different, but the wells are in the corporate limits of the city of Oklahoma City, and are subject to the same regulations.

On the authority of Gant et al. v. Oklahoma City et al., No. 21798, 150 Okla. 86, — Pac._, this case is affirmed.

LESTER, C. J. and OÜLLISON, SWIN-DALL, ANDREWS, and McNEILL, JJ., concur. RILEY and HEFNER, JJ., absent. CLARK, Y. O. J., dissents.