City of Sapulpa v. Land
| Decision Date | 18 September 1923 |
| Docket Number | 14165. [a1] |
| Citation | 219 P. 117 |
| Parties | CITY OF SAPULPA v. LAND. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Section 3a, article 18, Williams Ann. Constitution, authorizing cities containing a population of more than 2,000 inhabitants to frame a charter for its own government, not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the state, reserves to the state a general legislative control in the state over such cities, and the general laws of the state pertaining to any rightful subject of legislation of general public concern which conflict with any charter provisions of such municipalities, prevail over such charter provisions.
Where the Constitution confers the power to do a particular act and prescribes the means and manner of doing such act, such means or manner is exclusive of all others.
Section 59, article 5, Williams Ann. Constitution, provides "Where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted." Under this provision of the Constitution, laws of a general nature do not necessarily have to operate upon every locality in the state, but such laws must apply equally to all classes similarly situated and to like conditions and subjects.
Section 20, article 10, Williams Ann. Constitution, providing that the Legislature shall not impose taxes for the purpose of any county, city, town, or other municipal corporations, but may, by general laws, confer on the proper authorities thereof, respectively, the power to assess and collect such taxes, having expressly prescribed the manner by which the Legislature may authorize the assessment and collection of municipal taxes, excludes the assessment and collection of such taxes in any other manner than pursuant to general laws.
Taxes are not debts, but are the positive acts of the government, and are the creatures of statute, and must be enforced in the manner provided by statute.
The statutes of this state, sections 9730 to 9749, inclusive, Comp. Stat. 1921, provide a full and comprehensive system by which delinquent taxes on real estate may be collected by a sale of such real estate by the county treasurer, the collecting agency. Such method being the only one authorized by the statutes is exclusive for the enforcement of such tax liens, including special assessment for street improvements, and a foreclosure of such liens in the district courts of this state is unauthorized.
Sections 46 and 46 o, article 5. Williams Ann. Constitution, provides: "The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law * * * regulating the practice or jurisdiction of * * * the courts." Held that the jurisdiction and practice of the courts of this state of the same class must be uniform throughout the state.
Section 1, article 7, Williams Ann. Constitution, vests the judicial power of this state in the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, a Supreme Court, district courts, county courts, courts of justices of the peace, municipal courts, and such other courts, commissions or boards, inferior to the Supreme Court, as may be established by law. Held such courts are vested with only such judicial power as is conferred upon them by the Constitution and laws of the state.
The jurisdiction of the courts of this state and the regulation of the procedure and practice in said courts is a matter of general public interest subject to regulation only by the supreme sovereign power of the state. Municipalities operating under a freeholders' charter in this state are without power to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of this state to decree a foreclosure of tax liens or special assessment liens.
The subject of taxation is one in which the sovereign power of the state has an interest, and the manner of enforcing tax liens is subject to the general laws of the state.
Record examined, and held that the judgment of the trial court sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's petition be affirmed.
Appeal from District Court, Creek County; Fred A. Speakman, Judge.
Action by the City of Sapulpa against Paul Land to foreclose tax liens and special assessment liens. Demurrer to the petition was sustained, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Albertson & Blakemore, of Sapulpa, for plaintiff in error.
Walker & Lee, of Sapulpa, for defendant in error.
The city of Sapulpa, a municipal corporation, plaintiff, instituted this action in the district court of Creek county against Paul Land, defendant, to have decreed a lien on certain lots located in the city of Sapulpa and said real estate lien foreclosed, and said real estate sold to pay the ad valorem taxes due the city of Sapulpa on said lots for the years 1911 to 1921, inclusive; the amount of said municipal taxes alleged to be $756.24, and 18 per cent. penalty.
The petition filed by the plaintiff pleaded a second cause of action, in which the plaintiff sought to have decreed a lien against said property for special paving assessment for the years 1911 to 1919, inclusive, and said lien foreclosed to satisfy said indebtedness of $1,667.10, with interest and penalties.
The defendant, Paul Land, filed a general demurrer to each of the causes of action pleaded by the plaintiff in its petition, which demurrer was by the court sustained, and the plaintiff, refusing to plead further, elected to stand upon its petition, and prosecutes this appeal to reverse the judgment of the trial court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff's action.
The only question presented on this appeal is whether or not the city of Sapulpa, operating under a freeholders' charter, may provide for the assessment and collection of municipal taxes or special assessments in a manner inconsistent with the general laws of the state, and in providing for the collection of such taxes confer jurisdiction or the power upon the district courts of this state to foreclose tax liens in an action to enforce the payment of such taxes. The charter of the city of Sapulpa provided that the board of commissioners of said city may, by ordinance, provide a system for the assessment, equalization, levy, and collection of all municipal taxes not inconsistent with the provisions of the charter.
The board of commissioners, pursuant to the grant of authority in said charter, passed an ordinance authorizing the enforcement and collection of ad valorem and special assessment, taxes, penalties, and interest by an action in the district or superior court of Creek county against the record owners of any real estate within the corporate limits of the city of Sapulpa, by a foreclosure of tax liens against said real estate and authorizing the court to decree a sale of such property and direct the same to be sold by the sheriff of the county in the same manner as is provided by the statutes and laws of Oklahoma for the sale of real estate under execution and the issuance of a sheriff's deed.
Counsel for the city insist that the case of Bodine v. Oklahoma City, 79 Okl. 106, 187 P. 209, supports their contention that the city had a right to maintain this action, and base their contention upon the following language found in the opinion:
See Thurston, County Treasurer, v. Caldwell, 40 Okl. 206, 137 P. 683.
It is conceded that in the Bodine Case the precise question in the case at bar was not involved. The only question involved in the case, supra, was whethor or not the county excise board had authority to revise and correct the budget or estimate of the probable needs of the city for municipal purposes. It is apparent that the matter of the budget for the needs of a city is purely a municipal matter so long as the cost of such budget is within the limitation of the law.
It appears from an examination of the adjudicated cases by this court that this court has uniformly held that the provisions of a charter adopted pursuant to section 3a, article 18, Williams Ann. Constitution, become the organic law of the municipality, and supersede the laws of the state in conflict therewith, in so far as such general laws attempt to regulate purely municipal matters. Owen v. Tulsa, 27 Okl. 264, 111 P. 320; Lackey v. Estate, 29 Okl. 255, 116 P. 913; State v. Linn, 153 P. 826 (Okl.); City of Collinsville v. Ward, 64 Okl. 30, 165 P. 1145.
A careful examination of these cases and the cases from other jurisdictions leaves the question as to what constitutes purely municipal matters or affairs, a question difficult of determination, as there does not appear to be any well-established rule by which it may be determined as to just what affairs or matters are purely municipal. In considering the questions involved in this appeal we deem it advisable to consider the pertinent constitutional provisions which must necessarily be considered in properly determining the same.
Section 3a of article 18 authorizes any city containing a population of more than 2,000 inhabitants to frame a charter for its own government by electing a board of freeholders composed of two from each ward to draft and prepare such charter. After said charter is submitted to, and approved by, the qualified electors at an election held for that purpose, it must then be submitted to the Governor for his approval, and if the same shall not be in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state the Governor is...
To continue reading
Request your trial