GAYMAN v. THOMPSON

Annotate this Case

GAYMAN v. THOMPSON
1916 OK 857
161 P. 1056
58 Okla. 496
Case Number: 7592
Decided: 10/10/1916
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

GAYMAN, County Treasurer, et al.
v.
THOMPSON.

Syllabus

¶0 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Same as syllabus in case of Gayman, County Treasurer, et al. v. Mullen, ante, p. 477.

Error from District Court, Lincoln County; Chas. B. Wilson, Jr., Judge.

Action by G. L. Thompson against John J. Gayman, County Treasurer, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to dismiss petition.

John J. Davis and Grant Stanley, for plaintiffs in error.
Erwin & Erwin, for defendant in error.

THACKER, J.

¶1 The plaintiffs in error will be designated as defendants, and the defendant in error as plaintiff, in accord with their respective titles in the trial court.

¶2 This is an action by plaintiff against defendants to vacate and set aside a special assessment of $ 400, based upon a finding of a drainage benefit, and to perpetually enjoin the collection of the same against his northeast quarter (1/4) of the southeast quarter (1/4) of section twenty-one (21), in township fourteen (14) north, of range two (2) east of the Indian meridian in Lincoln county, Okla., as a part of drainage district No. 1, of said county. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants bring the case here for review.

¶3 Except as to the real property affected and the owner of the same, this case is practically identical in the facts thereof and precisely identical in the questions presented for decision with the case of John J. Gayman, County Treasurer, et al. v. Mullen, ante, p. 477, 161 P. 1051, decided at this time. The opinion and syllabus in the last-mentioned case is adopted as the opinion and syllabus in this case.

¶4 The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss plaintiff's petition.

¶5 SHARP, HARDY, and TURNER, JJ., concur; KANE, C. J., not participating.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.