Title: BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS v. CITY of MARLOW
Citation: 148 Okla. 126, 1930 OK 569, 298 P. 25 5
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 16, 1930

BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS v. CITY of MARLOW Annotate this Case BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS v. CITY of MARLOW 1930 OK 569 298 P. 255 148 Okla. 126 Case Number: 19958 Decided: 12/16/1930 Supreme Court of Oklahoma BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. CITY of MARLOW. Syllabus ¶0 Limitation of Actions--Action by City Against County to Recover Funds Credited to County. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the case of Board of Education, City of Duncan, Stephens County, v. Brown, Co. Treas., No. 19957, this day decided, 148 Okla. 97 , 298 P. 249, are adopted and made the syllabus in this case. Error from District Court, Stephens County; E. L. Richardson, Judge. Action by the City of Marlow against the Board of County Commissioners of Stephens County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed, with directions. J. H. Long, for plaintiff in error. Bailey & Hammerly, for defendant in error. LESTER, V. C. J. ¶1 This is an action by the 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 cover a period of time beginning in the year 1908 and ending in the year 1924. 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 amount claimed. ¶2 The principal question here presented is whether or not the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the statute of limitations. ¶3 The case is a companion case to the case of Brown, Co. Treas., v. Board of Education, No. 19957, 148 Okla. 97 , 298 P. 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. ¶4 We also there held that the county is not liable for interest except where lawfully contracted for and imposed by statute.