# State Ex Rel. Williamson v. Longmire

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · March 29, 1955 · 281 P.2d 949

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847663

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Mac Q. WILLIAMSON, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Mac Q. Williamson, John O. Baker and Earl Ward, Trustees; Baylls L. Graham, Earl Ward, and C. D. Mitchell, Administrators With Will Annexed of the Estate of W. A. Graham, Deceased, Petitioners, v. Carl W. LONGMIRE, Judge, of the County Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, and Carl Graham, Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 29, 1955
- **Citations:** 281 P.2d 949; 1955 OK 89; 1955 Okla. LEXIS 741
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Welch
- **Judges:** Blackbird, Corn, Davison, Halley, Jackson, Johnson, Welch, Williams
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9847663

## Opinion text

*957 WELCH, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion only passes upon one question, and that is to decide that the decree of April 7, 1954, is not rendered void on its face by the tax point involved, or that the County Judge cannot vacate the decree for that cause on his own motion. While such a determination might be correct as to that one item, I do not believe the opinion goes far enough. I think we should determine several other questions or decline to assume original jurisdiction at all.
The majority opinion does not construe the statute, Title 62, Chapter 3, S.L.1953, or in any manner pass upon it, or upon its validity, or its effectiveness or applicability to this estate; nor decide any other question relating to the form or effectiveness or validity of the decree of April 7, 1954, or whether it might be void for any other reason. These and other questions are presented or tendered and I think we should consider them if we assume original jurisdiction in the cause. It seems to me that the majority opinion dealing only with the one minor point does not render much service in deciding the several questions and problems involved in the settlement of this estate. Therefore I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847663. Public record. Not legal advice.