Barrett v. Board of Com'rs of Tulsa County

• Decision Date: 07 February 1939
• Docket Number: 26895.
• Citation: 90 P.2d 442,185 Okla. 111,1939 OK 68
• Parties: BARRETT et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF TULSA COUNTY et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

90 P.2d 442

185 Okla. 111, 1939 OK 68

BARRETT et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF TULSA COUNTY et al.

No. 26895.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

February 7, 1939

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1939.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Invalid assessments against restricted Indian lands included within a drainage district cannot be reassessed against other lands within the district against which there have been original valid assessments, for the purpose of paying the bonds issued against the drainage district.

2. It is not necessary in order that a law be general and uniform in its operation (as contemplated by section 59, article 5 Oklahoma Constitution, Okl.St.Ann.) as distinguished from special (as prohibited by section 46, article 5, Ibid.) that it operate universally and alike throughout the state upon all persons or things. On the contrary, the Legislature may by the adoption of a classification limit the scope of its application without offense to constitutional inhibitions, if the classification or limitation so adopted is neither arbitrary nor capricious, and bears a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation.

3. Local or special laws are all those that rest on a false or deficient classification. Their vice is that they do not embrace all the class that they should naturally embrace. They create preference and establish inequality. They apply to persons, things, and places possessed of certain qualities or situations and exclude from their effect other persons things, or places which are not dissimilar in this respect.

4. Sections 13028 and 13029, O.S.1931, 82 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 401 402 (chapter 51, Sess.Laws 1925) examined and held to be special legislation and unconstitutional in view of sections 46 and 59, of art. 5, of the Oklahoma State Constitution, Okl.St.Ann.

5. A judgment or portion thereof which attempts to settle the rights of parties over whom the court has no jurisdiction is void as to such parties.

6. Federal Court judgment purporting to authorize an additional special assessment against property owners under an unconstitutional statute, held to be void in part for the reason that such property owners were not parties to the action.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Thurman S. Hurst, Judge.

Suit by Otto Barrett and Blanche Barrett against the Board of Commissioners of Tulsa County and others to enjoin the imposition and collection of additional or supplemental assessments against land in drainage district. From a judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed with directions.

C. N. Simon, of Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.

Holly L. Anderson, Co. Atty., Fred A. Fulghum, Asst. Co. Atty., and Conner & Winters, all of Tulsa, for defendants in error.

DAVISON Justice.

This case is presented to us on appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County. It was instituted on the 20th day of June, 1935, by Otto Barrett and Blanche Barrett, as plaintiffs, against the Board of County Commissioners, the County Treasurer and County Assessor of Tulsa County.

The plaintiffs sought to prevent by injunction the imposition and collection of an additional or supplemental assessment proposed to be made against their land by reason of its situation in what is known as Parkview Drainage District, No. 2, of Tulsa County. On Aug. 2nd, 1935, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition to which the defendants interposed a demurrer, upon the grounds that the facts stated were insufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. The demurrer was sustained. Upon plaintiffs' election to stand on their amended petition, the cause was dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed. They appear herein as plaintiffs in error. Our continued reference to the parties will be by the trial court designation.

From the amended petition of the plaintiffs the following, alleged facts appear. At some time prior to 1929 (apparently in 1922, according to exhibits attached to plaintiffs' petition) Park View Drainage Dist, No. 2, was created in Tulsa County, under the provisions of chapter 38, C.O.S. 1921, § 6039 et seq., 82 Okl.St.Ann. § 281 et seq. The costs of the drainage district, and the improvements created in connection therewith, were by special assessments imposed or attempted to be imposed upon the several tracts of land situated in said district. Bonds were issued to be paid from the proceeds of such assessments. A portion of the lands against which such special assessments were imposed, were the property of full blood Indians, and therefore, not legally liable for the payment thereof. The plaintiffs purchased their land in 1929, subsequent to the creation of the drainage district.

The drainage district defaulted in the payment of some of the bonds which were the property of one Victor D. Winters. In 1932, he instituted an action in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against the Board of County Commissioners, of Tulsa County, its members as members thereof, the Commissioners of said drainage district, and the county treasurer of said county to recover judgment on the bonds. The action was docketed as cause "No. 1485 equity." On the 7th day of April, 1932, judgment was rendered, the nature of which more fully appears from the following excerpt, quoted from the journal entry thereof:

"Said judgment being in the total sum of $15,952.85 and that said judgment bear interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from April 1st, 1932 until paid and for costs in the sum of $66.85 said judgment not to be a general judgment against the said Tulsa County, but to be paid in the due course of the County's fiscal administration; that is out of the funds arising from assessments now in process of collection and from such re-assessments against the property benefitted by the drainage ditch heretofore constructed by Park View Drainage District No. 2 of Tulsa county, Oklahoma as may be necessary to pay and retire this judgment, the said re-assessment to be made in accordance with the provision of chapter 51 of session laws of Oklahoma for the year 1925 in the due administration of the Districts affairs, the said Board of county commissioners to have a reasonable and sufficient time within which to make any re-assessment that may be necessary and within which to apportion said judgment against the lands, properties and corporate bodies in said Drainage Districts and to certify the same to the county assessor and the said county assessor to have reasonable and sufficient time within which to extend upon the tax rolls opposite each lot, parcel or tract of land, the amount of taxes so apportioned to it by said county commissioners."

On the 18th day of July, 1932, the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, claiming authority, to act in accord with the command of said judgment and under authority of chapter 51, Sess.Laws 1925 (sections 13028, 13029, O.S.1931, 82 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 401, 402), passed a resolution purporting to impose a second, and additional assessment upon the plaintiffs' land to pay in part, the judgment thus rendered.

The plaintiffs asserted in the trial court, and contend here in substance, first, that independent of chapter 51, Sess.Laws 1925, no authority existed for the imposition of an additional assessment on their land to cover the original cost of the drainage district improvement, for which an original valid assessment had been made; second, that such an additional assessment could not be made under chapter 51, Sess.Laws 1925, supra, for the reason that the same is unconstitutional and void; third, that the judgment of the Federal Court was insufficient to lend efficacy to the statute, because the plaintiffs were not parties to the Federal Court action.

The soundness of the first contention of the plaintiffs, as above set forth, is too well established in this jurisdiction to warrant an extended discussion. In general it has been the legislative policy of this state, as determined by this court on consideration of the statutes enacted by the law making body, to limit the recourse of the holders of bonds, issued to cover the original cost of an improvement to be paid by special assessments against property within an improvement district, to the original assessments against such property. In other words, generally speaking, in this jurisdiction bonds to be paid from special assessments are not general obligations of an improvement district and cannot be made such by successive assessments against the same property. See Wrightsman v. Stevenson et al., 168 Okl. 63, 33 P.2d 499, and authorities therein reviewed. If any doubt ever existed that (under existing statutes) such was the law of this state, as applied to drainage districts, it was forever dispelled by our discussion in Board of County Commissioners of Kiowa County et al. v. Kiowa National Bank of Snyder, 175 Okl. 3, 52 P.2d 777. In paragraph two of the syllabus in that case we said: "Invalid assessments against restricted Indian lands included within a drainage district cannot be reassessed against other lands within the district against which there have been original valid assessments, for the purpose of paying the bonds issued against the drainage district."

The defendants urge a reconsideration of our holding in the above case asserting that the provisions of the statute relating to drainage districts make the bonds general obligations of the district and authorize such a reassessment as is herein contemplated. Special emphasis is placed upon that portion of section 13027, O.S.1931, 82 Okl.St.Ann. § 338, reading as follows: "* * * provided, that in case any lands shall not be taxable in any proposed improvement district, the commissioners shall have the power either to prorate the amount...