David Cormick v. City of Oklahoma City
| Decision Date | 15 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 170,170 |
| Parties | DAVID McCORMICK, Appt., v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. B. F. Burwell for appellant.
Messrs. Claude Weaver, J. W. Johnson, and V. V. Hardcastle for appellees.
Suit for specific performance of eighteen contracts for the paving of certain streets in the city of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
A temporary restraining order was applied for and denied. The suit subsequently came on to be heard on the bill, answer, and proofs, and a decree was entered dismissing it. The decree was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 122 C. C. A. 215, 203 Fed. 921.
A question of jurisdiction arises: that is, whether an appeal lies from the decree of the circuit court of appeals to this court, and that depends upon the ground on which the jurisdiction of the district court was invoked, and whether, was consequence, the decree of the circuit court of appeals was final.
The bill alleges that McCormick, whom we shall designate as complainant, is a citizen and resident of St. Louis, Missouri, and that the city of Oklahoma City is a citizen and resident of Oklahoma, being a municipal corporation thereof, and that the other defendants are its officers.
The gravamen of the suit is that under an ordinance of the city, resolutions were passed by the city council at different times providing for the paving of certain streets in the city, and that under due and legal proceedings had under such resolutions plans, specifications, and estimates of the work were prepared by the city engineer. That in accordance with these and notices published complainant filed with the city clerk proposals and bids which were afterwards by the council duly accepted; that they, therefore became and constituted valid and binding contracts between the city and complainant for making such improvements, and that he, by reason of such contracts, has a vested right of property in the same, and is entitled to be permitted to perform the same. That subsequently the council attempted by resolution or motion to reconsider its action and to set aside the awards, in violation of complainant's rights. That he tendered formal written contracts and requested the acting mayor to execute them, but that officer refused to do so, or to approve the bonds presented therewith. That complainant has done in all other particulars the things required to be done and performed by him, and had done some work under his contracts before they were attempted to be set aside. That, unless restrained, the city will deprive complaina...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Brienen
...contract and property rights, for Fourteenth Amendment as for other purposes, was clearly drawn. In McCormick v. City of Oklahoma City, 236 U.S. 657, 35 S.Ct. 455, 59 L.Ed. 771 (1915), for example, the Supreme Court held that a city's breach of a contract to pave its streets was not a depri......
-
Alberti v. County of Nassau
...a contract is neither a confiscation of property nor a taking of property without due process of law,'" McCormick v. Oklahoma City, 236 U.S. 657, 660, 35 S.Ct. 455, 59 L.Ed. 771 (1915) (quoting Shawnee Sewerage & Drainage Co. v. Stearns, 220 U.S. 462, 471, 31 S.Ct. 452, 55 L.Ed. 544 (1911))......
-
Russo v. Sch. Bd. of Hampton
...542 F.2d at 1238 (citing, inter alia, Shawnee Sewerage & Drainage, 220 U.S. at 471, 31 S.Ct. 452,McCormick v. Okla. City, 236 U.S. 657, 660, 35 S.Ct. 455, 59 L.Ed. 771 (1915)), Manila Inv. Co. v. Trammell, 239 U.S. 31, 32–33, 36 S.Ct. 12, 60 L.Ed. 129 (1915), and Doby v. Brown, 232 F.2d 504......
-
Thompson v. Auditor Gen., Motion No. 67
...not impair its obligation. St. Paul Gaslight Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142, 21 S. Ct. 575, 45 L. Ed. 788;McCormick v. Oklahoma City, 236 U. S. 657, 35 S. Ct. 455, 59 L. Ed. 771. ‘The breach of a contract is neither a confiscation of property, nor a taking of property without due process of......