# Killey v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co.

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · December 7, 1926 · 122 Okla. 102

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3815536

## Case

- **Full name:** KILLEY, County Judge, Et Al. v. ST. LOUIS-S. F. RY. CO.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 7, 1926
- **Citations:** 122 Okla. 102; 250 P. 1021; 1926 OK 972; 1926 Okla. LEXIS 211
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Phelps
- **Judges:** Phelps, Branson, Mason, Harrison, Clark, Nicholson, Lester, Hunt, Riley
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3815536

## Opinion text

PHELPS, J.
In tbis action the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, a corporation, filed' its action in the district court of Muskogee county, against the defendants, constituting the excise board of Muskogee county, for injunctive relief as provided in State Question No'. 141, Initiative Petition No. 92, adopted by a vote of the people at the regular primary election held on August 3, 1926. To the petition the defendants med their demurrer, which was by the court overruled and defendants refused to plead further and elected' to stand upon their demurrer. The court entered judgment granting the plaintiff a permanent injunction against the defendants, from which order and judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The questions presented here are identical with the questions presented in cause No. 17907, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Ora Long, County Assessor, et al., the opinion in which was this day filed, 112 Okla. 86 , 251 Pac. 486 , and upon the authorities therein cited we reach the same conclusion in this case as'we reached in that, and the opinion, conclusion, and syllabus in that case are hereby adopted and applied to this ease, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
BRANSON, Y. C. J., and MASON. HARRISON, and CLARK, JJ., concur. NICHOLSON, O. J., and LESTER, J„ concur in conclusion. HUNT and RILEY, JJ., dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3815536. Public record. Not legal advice.