FRITTZ v. THORPE

FRITTZ v. THORPE
1931 OK 303
299 P. 884
149 Okla. 219
Case Number: 21952
Decided: 06/02/1931
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

FRITTZ, County Atty.,
v.
THORPE et al. (WESTMORELAND et al., Interveners).

Syllabus

¶0 Quo Warranto--Action by Taxpayers as Interveners Against Consolidated School District not Authorized.
Private individuals, who have only a general public interest, cannot maintain an action as interveners in quo warranto against a consolidated school district, although taxpayers thereof, even though the Attorney General or the county attorney decline to institute or prosecute such an action.

Appeal from District Court, Texas County; F. Hiner Dale, Judge.

Action by Geo. M. Frittz, County Attorney of Texas County against Joe H. Thorpe et al., officers of Consolidated School District No. 15 of Texas County; C. G. Westmoreland et al. intervening. Motion to strike petition of interveners sustained, and they appeal. Affirmed.

Geo. M. Frittz, for plaintiff in error.
Hughes & Dickson and Embry, Johnson, Crowe & Tolbert, for defendants in error.
C. W. Ferguson, for interveners.

HEFNER, J.

¶1 This is a proceeding in quo warranto brought in the district court of Texas county by George M. Frittz, county attorney, against Joe H. Thorpe, S. S. Sullivan, and W. D. Waldrop, director, clerk, and member, respectively, of consolidated school district No. 15 of Texas county, and questions their right to hold their respective offices. The cause of action is based on the theory that the consolidated district was irregularly organized. On the same day plaintiff's petition was filed, C. G. Westmoreland and others, as taxpayers of the school district, were granted leave to intervene.

¶2 In their petition interveners attacked the right of respondents to hold office on the same ground as alleged in plaintiff's petition. Demurrer to plaintiffs petition was sustained. Thereafter, on motion of defendants, the petition of interveners was stricken. This ruling is assigned as error. The identical question here involved was passed upon by this court in the case of Sugart v. Thorpe, 147 Okla. 152, 295 P. 605. It is there said:

"Private individuals, who have only a general public interest, cannot maintain an action as interveners in quo warranto against a consolidated school district, although taxpayers thereof, even though the Attorney General or the county attorney decline to institute or prosecute an action."

¶3 This case is decisive of the question here involved.