Case Name: HOUGH et al. v. CITY OF TULSA et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1926-05-25
Citations: 118 Okla. 211
Docket Number: No. 13727
Parties: HOUGH et al. v. CITY OF TULSA et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
HOUGH et al. v. CITY OF TULSA et al.
No. 13727
Opinion Filed May 25, 1926.
Withdrawn, Corrected and Refiled and Rehearing Denied July 13, 1926.
Louis W. Pratt and James M. Springer, for plaintiffs in error.
H. O. Bland, City Atty.. Harry L. S. Halley, and Allen & Underwood, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
MAXEX, 0.
This ease involves the sarnie questions as the case of Colvin et al. against City of Tulsa et al., No. 13727, which is a companion case to No. 13726, this day decided, (ante, p. 209). This case, as in the Colvin Case, is a suit to enjoin the city of Tulsa from making certain improvements in the way of paving, curbing, etc., in ihe city of Tulsa. A demurrer was sustained by the trial court tol the petition, on the ground that the case was barred by the statute of limitation ; and in the Colvin Case we sustain the judgment of the trial court' and affirmed the case. The same argument and citations of authorities in that case are applicable to this case, and on the autlidrity of that case, this case is also affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.