Case Name: ROOPE, Co. Treas., v. PONCA TWP. et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1919-11-18
Citations: 76 Okla. 296
Docket Number: No.10737
Parties: ROOPE, Co. Treas., v. PONCA TWP. et al.
Judges: PITCHFORD, McNEILL, HIGGINS, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
ROOPE, Co. Treas., v. PONCA TWP. et al.
No.10737 —
Opinion Filed Nov. 18, 1919.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Townships — Act Abolishing Township Government — Counties Affected.
Chapter 171, Session Laws 1919, amending section 7, chapter 286, Session Laws 1915, does not apply to Lincoln county, and township government in that county was not abolished by said act.
Error from District, Court, Lincoln County ; Hal Johnson, Judge.
Action by township officials of Ponca township, Lincoln county, for mandamus to compel the county treasurer to transfer to plaintiffs funds held by the treasurer for the use and benefit of the township. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Thos. G. Andrews, Co.'Atty., for plaintiff in error.
Jarrett & Speakman, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
OWEN, C. J.
The question presented is whether township government in Lincoln county was abolished by the provisions of chap. 171, Sess. Laws 1919.
Township officers were abolished in this state under the provisions of chap. 286, Sess. Laws 1915, except in those counties mentioned in section 7 of the act; Lincoln county not being one of the exceptions. But it appears the voters of Lincoln county, at the general election held in 1916, re-established township government under the provisions of section 5-A, art. 5, of the Constitution. (P. 120, Sess. Laws 1916).
Chapter 171, Sess. Laws 1919, does no more than to amend section 7 of chap. 286, Sess. Laws 1915, by striking out the names of certain counties among those exempted from the provisions of the 1915 act. Therefore the 1915 act had no reference or application to township government re-established in Lincoln county.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PITCHFORD, McNEILL, HIGGINS, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.