
    FRITTZ, County Atty., v. THORPE et al. (WESTMORELAND et al., Interveners).
    No. 21952.
    Opinion Filed June 2, 1931.
    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.

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. Tfie canse, of! action is' based on the theory that the consolidated district was irregularly organized. On the same day plaintiff’s petition was filed, O. G. Westmore-land and others, as taxpayers of the school district, were granted leave to intervene.

In their petition interveners attacked the right of respondents to hold office on the same ground as alleged in plain.iffs petition. Demurrer to plaintiff’s 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 Pac. 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.”

This case is decisive of the question here involved.

Judgment is affirmed.

CLARK, V. O. J., and RILEY, OULLISON, SWINDALL, and McNEILL, JJ., concur.

KORNEGAY, J., dissents.

LESTER, C. J., and ANDREWS, J.„ absent.  