CITY OF CLINTON, OKL. v. FIRST NAT. BANK IN CLINTON, OKL.
Citation | 39 F. Supp. 909 |
Decision Date | 18 July 1941 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 66. |
Parties | CITY OF CLINTON, OKL., ex rel. SCHUETTER, v. FIRST NAT. BANK IN CLINTON, OKL., et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Henry G. Snyder and Walter A. Lybrand, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., and W. R. Banker, of Muskogee, Okl., for plaintiff.
Meacham, Meacham & Meacham, G. C. Loving, Arney & Barker, and R. H. Dunn, all of Clinton, Okl., and Jones & Wesner, of Cordell, Okl., for defendants.
George H. Shirk and Arnold T. Fleig, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., amici curiae.
This opinion applies in part, also, to cases Numbers 192, 244, 258, 373, 435, 442, 519, 535, 539, 563, 575, 578, 583, 589, 599, 607, 608, 609, 614, 615, 617, 618, 620, 622, 627, 631, 632, 634, 642, 646, 694, and 695, now pending in this court. In all of these cases, suits have been filed in the name of the respective cities by and for the benefit of the bondholders owning paving bonds issued by the various cities named, for various street improvement or paving districts. The paving bonds were issued under the 1923 Act, Chap. 173, S.L.1923, 11 Okl.St.Ann. Chap. 3, § 81 et seq.
The various defendants have raised three main questions. The first question is applicable to all of the cases and the second and the third are applicable to certain of the cases. In order to facilitate the final disposition of these cases, all of the general matters in controversy are included in this opinion.
In all of these cases the defendants have pleaded the statute of limitations and, in support thereof, contend that, since the annual assessments have been delinquent for more than three years and no action in foreclosure had been instituted until three years after the tenth and final annual assessment had become delinquent, no action to enforce the payment of the bonds by foreclosure would lie since such action is barred by the statute of limitations.
These various bond issues were dated from January 5, 1924, to and including April 28, 1929, and the bonds were issued and the assessments levied to retire the bonds under the 1923 Act, supra. An examination of the 1923 Act, therefore, is necessary. Section 101 designates the property chargeable with the cost of paving improvements and provides for the apportionment of the costs. Section 103 is the important section in the consideration of these questions and is as follows: Section 105 provides for the dates of payment of the assessments, interest, et cetera. Section 107 provides for the enforcement of the collection of assessments by legal action.
Section 103 makes the assessments and interest thereon a lien against the lots and tracts of land so assessed coequal with the lien of other taxes, and provides: "* * * and such lien shall continue as to unpaid installments and interest until such assessments and interest thereon shall be fully paid."
This act was construed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in Perryman v. City Home Builders, 121 Okl. 150, 248 P. 605, 606. The second and third paragraphs of the syllabus are as follows:
In the foregoing opinion the court reviewed the paving laws of Oklahoma prior to the adoption of the 1923 Act, emphasized the principal features of the prior acts which were carried forward into the 1923 Act, and held that the lien created by the assessments for the payment of the paving bonds continues until such assessments and interest thereon are fully paid.
In Moore v. Otis et al., 275 F. 747, 751, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, in passing upon the Oklahoma statute, said:
This case is cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in McGrath v. Oklahoma City, 156 Okl. 34, 9 P.2d 711.
The status of the bonds and the provision that the liens of the assessments levied to pay same should continue until the bonds were fully paid, were fixed by the statutes of the state and the construction placed thereon by the highest court of the state, at the time the bonds were issued.
The defendants contend that the decision of the State Supreme Court rendered March 4, 1941, in the case of Board of Education of Duncan, Okl. v. Johnston, Okl.Sup., 115 P.2d 132, not yet reported in State Report, supports their theory that these actions are barred by the statute of limitations.
It was evidently the intention of the Oklahoma Supreme Court that such ruling should not have application to property other than that owned by municipal corporations, or branches of the sovereignty, where the assessments must be raised by general taxes. Even then such decision may not impair the contractual rights of bondholders, because not only the statutes as they existed at the time the bonds were issued, but also the judicial construction then placed upon such statutes became a part of such bond contract.
The rule is stated in Board of Education of Town of Carmen, Okl., et al. v. James, 10 Cir., 49 F.2d 91, 96, thus:
The same rule was stated in Douglass v. County of Pike, cited in the above case, as follows at page 686 of 101 U.S., 25 L.Ed. 968: "As a rule, we treat the construction which the highest court of a State has given a statute of the State as part of the statute, and govern ourselves accordingly; but where different constructions have been given to the same statute at different times, we have never felt ourselves bound to follow the latest decisions, if thereby contract rights which have accrued under earlier rulings will be injuriously affected."
At the time the bonds here under consideration were issued, the Oklahoma Supreme Court had held that the lien of the assessments for street improvements "shall continue as to unpaid installments and interest until such assessments and interest thereon shall be fully paid," as the statute itself states. The above cited cases construing such statute held that it meant just what it said. This became a rule of property which may not be affected by later decisions.
No cases have been cited from other states, holding the statute of limitations applicable where said statutes have a parallel provision to that of Oklahoma, namely, that the lien of the assessments and each installment thereof shall continue until paid, except from states where the statute of limitations specifically includes the lien of taxes. Such cases from other jurisdictions, consequently, are not controlling on the question here involved.
A clear distinction has not been made in all of the briefs submitted, between the street improvements assessments and the street improvement bonds. Only the assessments constitute liens upon the real...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Signal Thread Co. v. King
...has, and property temporarily in a state acquires no situs for tax purposes. City of Clinton, Okl., ex rel. Schuetter v. First Nat. Bank in Clinton, D.C. Okl., 39 F.Supp. 909, affirmed, C.C.A.; Hann v. City of Clinton, Okl., ex rel. Schuetter, 131 F.2d 978; Brock & Co. v. Board of Sup'rs of......
-
Foote Co., Inc. v. City of McAlester
......City of. Hollis, 193 Okl. 241, 142 P.2d 633, 150 A.L.R. 1385;. Board of ... enacted previous to 1939 (see City of Clinton, Okl. ex rel. Schuetter v. First Nat. Bank in ......
-
CITY OF HOLLIS, OKL. v. Carrell
...reference to case number in the opinion of this court filed July 18, 1941, in City of Clinton, Okl., ex rel. v. First National Bank of Clinton, Okl., et al., 39 F.Supp. 909, and that opinion is incorporated herein by reference as same is applicable to the questions here Certain defendants s......
-
TOWN OF OKEENE, OKL. v. Kratz
...of limitations. This question has been decided contrary to their contentions in City of Clinton, Okl., ex rel. Schuetter v. First Nat. Bank in Clinton, Okl., D.C., 39 F.Supp. 909, which expressly referred to the instant case by The defendants also contend that they are entitled to recover t......