Case Name: STATE ex rel. MURPHY et al. v. BOARD OF ED., OKLAHOMA CITY, et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1939-09-12
Citations: 185 Okla. 654
Docket Number: No. 27341
Parties: STATE ex rel. MURPHY et al. v. BOARD OF ED., OKLAHOMA CITY, et al.
Judges: BAYLESS, C. J„ and RILEY, OSBORN, CORN, GIBSON, HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 654–655

Head Matter:
STATE ex rel. MURPHY et al. v. BOARD OF ED., OKLAHOMA CITY, et al.
No. 27341.
Sept. 12, 1939.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1939.
Second Petition for Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1939.
B. M. Parmenter and Harlan Grimes, for plaintiffs in error.
Tomerlin,. Chandler, Shelton, & Fowler and John W. Swinford, for defendants in error New York Casualty Company and American Surety Company of New York.
Maurice M. Thomas, for defendants in error National Surety Corporation, New Amsterdam Casualty Company and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company.
Ned Looney,, for defendant in error Standard Accident Insurance- Company.
Hayes, Richardson, Shartel, Gilliland & Jordan, for other defendants.

Opinion:
WELCH, V. C. J.
This appeal involves the expenditure .of the same funds as was involved in the ease of Board of Education of City of Oklahoma City, a Municipal Corporation, v. Dr. H. H. Cloudman and others, 185 Okla. 400, 92 P.2d 837, and in addition a similar expenditure for a portion of the fiscal year 1932-33, and is an action brought by taxpayers. The same propositions of law are involved herein as were considered in the Cloudman Case, supra, and the conclusions therein reached are applicable and controlling here.
The author of this opinion dissented in the Cloudman Case, and still entertains the view that the rule in that case is not sound, but nevertheless recognizes that the rule of that case in its full extent must be .regarded as binding on the court in this ease,, and1 for that reason it must be and is followed here.
The order of the trial court in sustaining the several demurrers to the petition and its judgment in favor of all of the defendants is therefore affirmed.
BAYLESS, C. J" and RILEY, OSBORN, CORN, GIBSON, HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur.