Case Name: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. CITY of MARLOW
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1930-12-16
Citations: 148 Okla. 126
Docket Number: No. 19958
Parties: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. CITY of MARLOW.
Judges: MASON, C. J., and HEFNER, CULLISON. SWINDALL, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. RILEY, X, dissents. HUNT and CLARK, J.T.. absent.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. CITY of MARLOW.
No. 19958.
Opinion Filed Dec. 16, 1930.
Rehearing Denied April 21, 1931.
J. H. Long, for plaintiff in error.
Bailey & Hammerly; for defendant in error.

Opinion:
LESTER, Y. C. J.
This is an action by cbe city of Marlow against the board of county commissioners of Stephens county to recover certain sums of money belonging to the said city, in which it was alleged it was collected 'by the county and diverted to its own use and benefit and also for interest thereon. The claims for recovery coyer a period of time beginning in the year 1908 and ending in the year 1934. Suit was filed on December 28, 1927; service had on the defendants on the same date, and return thereon made on December 30, 1927. The defense was a general denial and plea of limitation. Trial was had to the court, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the amoiint claimed.
The principal question here presented is whether or not the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the statute of limitations.
The case is a companion ease to the ease of Brown, Co. Treas., v. Board of Education, No. 19957, 148 Okla. 97, 298 Pac. 249, this day decided by this court. We held in that case that the statute, of limitations was available to the county as a defense to claims against a county more than three years prior to filing of an action. This holding is decisive of this case.
We also there held that the county is not liable for interest except where lawfully contracted for and imposed by statute.
Judgment is reversed, with directions to proceed in said cause not inconsistent with the opinion herein.
MASON, C. J., and HEFNER, CULLISON. SWINDALL, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. RILEY, X, dissents. HUNT and CLARK, J.T.. absent.