ADAMS v. CITY OF McALESTER

ADAMS v. CITY OF McALESTER
1955 OK 216
286 P.2d 726
Case Number: 36604
Decided: 07/19/1955
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BEATRICE ADAMS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,

v.

THE CITY OF McALESTER, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Syllabus

¶0 Record examined and held: action to enjoin municipality from proceeding with [286 P.2d 727] certain street improvements properly dismissed as being res judicata and barred by limitations.

[286 P.2d 727]

Appeal from the District Court of Pittsburg County; W.A. Lackey, Judge.

Action by Beatrice Adams and others to enjoin the City of McAlester from proceeding with certain street improvements. From a judgment dismissing the action plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Hulsey & Hulsey, W.J. Hulsey, Lena Hulsey, McAlester, for plaintiffs in error.

Walter J. Arnote, City Atty, McAlester, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, V.C.J.

¶1 By this action, three property owners, as plaintiffs, seek to enjoin the City of McAlester, as defendant, from proceeding further in the improvement of a certain city street therein and from issuing special improvement bonds and from levying special improvement tax assessments against plaintiffs' property to pay for the same. Defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground it was res judicata and also because barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the action and plaintiffs appeal.

¶2 The record reveals that plaintiffs here were also parties plaintiff in the case of Riedt v. City of McAlester, Okl.,

¶3 Plaintiffs assert that the Riedt case is not res judicata because the judgment therein was on a question of limitation only and not on the merits. It is true that the Riedt case was held to be barred by the statute of limitations because not filed within the 15 day period provided by

¶4 We deem no further discussion of the merits of the case necessary.

¶5 Judgment affirmed.

¶6 JOHNSON, C.J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, HALLEY and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.