# Smart v. Board of County Com'rs of Craig County

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · December 11, 1917 · 67 Okla. 141

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3822579

## Case

- **Full name:** SMART, Sheriff, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM’RS OF CRAIG COUNTY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 11, 1917
- **Citations:** 67 Okla. 141; 169 P. 1101; 1917 OK 590; 1917 Okla. LEXIS 367
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thacker
- **Judges:** Hardy, Thacker
- **Cited by:** 71 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/3822579

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that Okla.Const. art. X, § 26, otherwise restricting county expenditures to monies levied for the fiscal year did not bar a claim for the cost of feeding the jail prisoners though monies budgeted for that purpose had been exhausted
- holding that a sheriff's lawful expenditure of money to feed prisoners in the discharge of duties imposed upon the sheriff by the Constitution and state laws constitutes a valid charge against the county

## Opinion text

THACKER, J.
(dissenting). I appreciate the force of the reasons for the opinion of the court; but I dissent for reasons stated in Campbell v. State ex rel. Brett, County Attorney, 23 Okla. 109 , 99 Pac. 778 , in Shannon v. State ex rel. Davidson, 33 Okla. 293 , 125 Pac. 1106 , in Buxton & Skinner Stationery Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Craig County, 53 Okla. 65 , 155 Pac. 215 , in Kerr, County Clerk, v. State ex rel. Wimbish, County Attorney, 33 Okla. 110 , 124 Pac. 284 , and, especially, for reasons stated in State ex rel. Decker v. Stanfield, 34 Okla. 524 , 126 Pac. 239 , which case finds ample support in Board of County Commissioners of the County of Lake v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662 , 9 Sup. Ct. 651, 32 L. Ed. 1060 , Wis. Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor Co., 52 Wis. 37 , 8 N. W. 833 , and Grand Island & N. W. R. Co. v. Baker, 6 Wyo. 369 , 45 Pac. 494 , 34 L. R. A. 835, 71 Am. St. Rep. 926 , cited by
*146
Commissioner Bleakmore in the original but now rejected opinion in this ease, reported in 158 Pac. 601 , L. R. A. 1916F, 892, which I think is correct.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3822579. Public record. Not legal advice.