Case ID: okla_40/html/0477-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KANE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF BARTLESVILLE et al. v. REVARD.
    No. 5433.
    Opinion Filed January 13, 1914.
    Rehearing Denied March 10, 1914.
    (139 Pac. 277.)
    PAVING- ASSESSMENT — Former Opinion Followed. Reversed on authority of City of Bartlesville et al. v. Holm et al., ante, 139 Pac. 273.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      
      Error from District Court, Washington County;
    
    
      R. H. Hudson, Judge.
    
    Suit by Belle Revard against the City of Bartlesville and others to- enjoin collection of special assessment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Reversed and remanded.'
    
      M. D. Libby, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Leahy & MacDonald„ for defendant in error.
   KANE, J.

The facts in the foregoing case are identical with the facts in the case of the City of Bartlesville et al. v. Holm et al., ante, 139 Pac. 273, and City of Bartlesville et al. v. Bucy, ante, 139 Pac. 277, except that the plaintiff in this case did not pay any of the assessments levied against the property prior to the commencement of her injunction suit. There is a stipulation that the judgment in this case should follow the decision in the other cases, unless it is distinguishable on account of the foregoing fact.

We do not believe that the mere fact that a payment of any of the assessments was not made is sufficient to take the instant case out of the rule laid down in the other two cases.. Upon the authority of those cases, the judgment in the instant case is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to proceed in accordance with the opinion of this court in the City of Bartlesville et al. v. Holm et al., supra.

All the Justices concur.