City of Tucson v. THE TUCSON GAS, ELEC. LIGHT & POWER CO.
Decision Date | 26 December 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 11005.,11005. |
Parties | CITY OF TUCSON v. THE TUCSON GAS, ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Thos J. Elliott, of Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.
Darnell & Robertson, George R. Darnell, and Lawrence V. Robertson, all of Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, BONE, and ORR, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, hereinafter called City, appeals from a judgment dismissing a complaint in a condemnation proceeding in which it seeks a judgment of valuation of all the electric and gas plants and system of the appellee, hereinafter called Company, for purposes of procuring a final order of condemnation vesting title of the property in the City after revenue bonds for their acquisition have been issued and disposed of and the amount awarded is paid. Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 17, Revised Stats.1928, §§ 1346, 1347, Arizona Code Annotated, 1939, §§ 27-918, 27-919.
Though the judgment assessing the value of the properties to be acquired is called a final judgment, condemnation — that is the vesting of title — is not made until the assessed amount is paid. Failure to pay the amount within the statutory time requires that the interlocutory order for condemnation be set aside and the entire proceedings annulled with a right of execution in the defendant. Id. § 27-918. For properties to be paid for by revenue bonds, the time after the judgment fixing the price within which the payment is to be made is eighteen months. Arizona Laws 1933, ch. 77, § 3, p. 313.
The District Court, as also in the case of Town of South Tucson v. Tucson Gas, Electric & Pow. Co., 9 Cir., 149 F.2d 847, failed to give us the benefit of its views of the law of the State of Arizona in which it sits. We expect such assistance, at least, in cases of such importance as these of first instance under Arizona's recent revenue Bond legislation of 1943. Nor was the City complied with our rule 20(f) requiring that its briefs print "so much of the statutes cited as may be deemed necessary to the decision of the case."
The significant portion of the section is that the election is to come before the issuance of the bonds.1 It does not provide that it shall precede the filing of the complaint for condemnation. It is obviously advantageous that the voters first should have fixed the valuation by the court instead of a preliminary estimate by the City Council. If the amount fixed by the Council and voted for by the electorate is less than that later fixed by the court, the whole court proceeding is wasted effort. The voters well may vote for a larger amount if they realize it is determined by court process. In any event, the voters better will be advised after such a judicial determination. We hold that the voters' consent may be given at an election after the court has assessed the amount to be paid for the property sought to be condemned.
From this the argument is that the electric system also extending over Pinal, Santa Cruz and Cochise counties cannot be divided by the court for assessing damages. Hence it is argued there never can be a just assessment of damages in a condemnation of a utility extending over more than one county, since any such attempt would violate the Arizona constitutional provision of Sec. 17, Art. 2, providing for just compensation in such proceedings. We do not agree, even assuming that the suits must be brought in several counties. The apportionment of damages of the properties in the several counties may be difficult, but such difficulty often attends the assessment of damages.
However, we are of the opinion that under the Arizona statutes the state superior court may have jurisdiction of the condemnation of the entire property if a part of the property of the utility undertaking is situated in that county. The phrase of § 27-909, supra, "in the same manner as other civil actions" refers to the venue provision for other civil actions. Arizona Code, Annotated, 1939, § 21-101 (12) provides as to the venue for real property actions (Emphasis supplied.)
As to personal property, Section 21-101 (11) recognizes the presumption that personal property is where the owner is. It reads
These actions concern venue and not jurisdiction to hear and determine litigation concerning such property, which remains in the court of filing unless there be affidavits filed before the time to answer. § 21-102. Only upon a showing of lack of venue is the case transferred to another county. The extraordinary difficulties in segregation of such properties for valuation, stressed by the Company, accentuates the conclusion that the Arizona Legislature conceived § 27-909 as such a venue provision.
The City points out that if it had brought its suit in the United States District Court for Arizona that court would have jurisdiction to determine as a unit the value of the properties in the four counties. Having been brought into that court by the Company under the diversity of citizenship statute, 28 U.S.C. 41 (1), 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1), providing that the "controversy" between the parties shall be adjudicated there, the City argues that the controversy between the parties as to the condemnation of the entire plant necessarily is before that court. Since the objection of the Company is one based on venue and not jurisdiction and the case cannot be transferred to an Arizona county court, we agree with the City's contention that if the District Court otherwise has jurisdiction to condemn property outside the City's boundaries that court has it to condemn the entire property.
The Company contends that the provisions of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power Dist.
...use to which it is to be applied is a more necessary public use. A.R.S. § 12-1112, subsection 3. In City of Tucson v. The Tucson Gas, Elect. Light & Power Co., 152 F.2d 552 (19th Cir.1945), in a statement with which we do not quarrel the circuit court of the United States in speaking of § 1......
-
Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court In and For Pima County
...statute which has been complied with, it is not necessary to comply with the general statute. City of Tucson v. Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co., 152 F.2d 552 (9th Cir.1947); Knape v. Brown, 86 Ariz. 158, 342 P.2d 195 (1959). Thus, when the city has complied with the provisions of the......
-
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co
... ... corporation [67 Ariz. 14] (appellee herein) which is a public ... utility serving the City of Tucson and vicinity ... The ... order of the Corporation Commission, which was vacated by the ... Superior Court, required that the ... ...
- Imported Liquors Co. v. Los Angeles Liquor Co.