Byrum v. City of Shawnee

Decision Date12 July 1921
Docket NumberCase Number: 12213
Citation83 Okla. 16,1921 OK 284,200 P. 183
PartiesBYRUM et al. v. CITY OF SHAWNEE et al.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. Municipal Corporations--Power to Issue Securities--Legislative Authority. Municipal corporations cannot issue bonds or other like securities unless the power to do so is, conferred by legislative authority either express or clearly implied.

2. Same--Charter Powers--Use of Street Improvement Bonds. Record examined, and held, that section 16, art. 9, of the city charter does not confer power upon the city to issue street improvement bonds for the construction of street intersections and alley crossings where the city elects to pay the same out of the general revenues of the city.

Iris Saunders, for plaintiffs in error. Wyatt & Waldrep, for City of Shawnee. G. A. Paul, for Harry Tidd.

KANE, J.

¶1 The questions for review in the above entitled cause are presented by an agreed statement of facts filed in the court below pursuant to statute. The facts agreed upon, in so far as it is necessary to state them, may be briefly summarized as follows:

In July, 1911, the city of Shawnee adopted a charter form of government, the charter, among other things, providing that the State Paving Law of April 17, 1908, shall be the organic law of the city in reference to the pavement and improvement of its streets and alleys.

¶2 Another section of the charter (sec. 9, art. 16) provides as follows:

"The mayor and council shall provide for the payment of the cost of improving street intersections and alley crossings, which cost shall be provided for and paid by said city, and for the purpose of paying such expenses a separate and special levy shall be made and entered against all the property of said city at the next annual tax levy after such estimate is made, which said expense shall embrace the pro rata part of the expense of advertising and making profiles and specifications, together with the expense charged by the city engineer, superintendence, and in all other respects, but the city may at its option arrange for the payment in five or more equal annual payments, and the board of appraisers appointed for ascertaining and assessing a portion of such expense as may be charged to the street or steam railway companies, or to either of them, and to the city."

¶3 After the adoption of this charter the city decided to permanently improve certain of its streets by paving, curbing, and gutter-ing the same, and in that behalf passed certain ordinances and resolutions and entered into certain contracts providing for the issuance of two sets of street improvement bonds. The first set of street improvement bonds, which were a charge against the specific property to be improved on a benefit basis, were issued strictly in accordance with the street improvement laws contained in article 12, ch. 10, Sess. Laws, 1910, which, as we have seen, were also adopted by the charter as the organic law of the city, and no question is raised as to their validity. The second set of street improvement bonds purport to be issued pursuant to section 16, art. 9, of the charter, supra, and were designated "Special Street Improvement Bonds." They were issued in payment of the paving of street intersections and alley crossings and were payable in ten equal annual installments, with interest at 7 per cent. per annum. Both sets of bonds were to be delivered to the defendant in error Harry Tidd, the paving contractor, in payment for the entire paving improvements. In relation to the second set of bonds it was agreed between the city and the paving contractor "that said bonds when so issued shall be a direct charge and assessment against all the taxable property of said city; said bonds when so issued shall be deposited with the city treasurer to be by the city treasurer delivered to the said contractor in payment of the cost of the construction of said intersections and alley crossings, or any part thereof from time to time upon the completion and acceptance by said city and upon the certificate and recommendation of the city engineer showing the completion and acceptance thereof. * * * It is further agreed by and between the parties hereto that said city shah cause to be levied against all taxable property in said city annually a sum sufficient to pay the said maturing special improvement bonds and the interest due annually thereon. And the said city does hereby pledge in full faith, credit and revenue of said city for the purpose of paying said special improvement bonds and interest coupons thereon." The parties agree that the following questions present the propositions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • The Kaw Valley Drainage District of Wyandotte County v. The City of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1925
    ... ... L. 992, 993; 8 ... McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, § 2277; 2 Dillon on ... Municipal Corporations, 5th ed., § 874; Comm'rs ... of Shawnee County v. Carter, 2 Kan. 115; The State ... v. Kansas City, 60 Kan. 518, 525, 57 P. 118; Turner ... v. Roseberry Irr. Dist., 33 Idaho 746, 198 P. 65; ... Bohannon v. City of Louisville, 193 Ky. 276, 235 ... S.W. 750; Byrum v. City of Shawnee, 83 Okla. 16, 200 ... P. 183; Doan v. Board of Supervisors, 21 Ariz. 240, ... 187 P. 265; Schieffelin v. Hylan, 106 Misc. 347, ... ...
  • Zachary v. City of Wagoner
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1930
    ...any indebtedness except when and as such authority is delegated by the Constitution or by valid legislative enactment ( Byrum v. City of Shawnee, 83 Okla. 16, 200 P. 183). The limitation contained in section 26, article 10, supra, is operative for the reason that the indebtedness incurred d......
  • City of Chickasha v. Foster
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1935
    ...and crossings, but the power to issue bonds rather than to pay for such indebtedness by assessments is doubtful. Byrum v. City of Shawnee, 83 Okla. 16, 200 P. 183. Without deciding this issue, we may inquire whether the city, as such, assumed the indebtedness pro tanto for improvements to s......
  • Hood v. Jones, Case Number: 26575
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1935
    ...to authorize such indebtedness is in the voters of such city voting at an election held for that purpose. ¶27 In Byrum et al. v. City of Shawnee, 83 Okla. 16, 200 P. 183, it is held that the city of Shawnee under its charter, which adopted the street improvement law of the state, article 12......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT