Denton v. City of Sapulpa

• Citation: 189 P. 532,78 Okla. 178,1920 OK 184
• Decision Date: 20 April 1920
• Docket Number: 11094.
• Parties: DENTON v. CITY OF SAPULPA ET AL.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

189 P. 532

78 Okla. 178, 1920 OK 184

DENTON v. CITY OF SAPULPA ET AL.

No. 11094.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

April 20, 1920

Syllabus by the Court.

The words "public utilities," as used in section 27 article 10, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma embrace a burial ground or cemetery to be purchased, owned and controlled by a city and opened to the use of the public under reasonable regulations for the burial of the dead.

Error from District Court, Creek County; Lucien B. Wright, Judge.

Action by Joseph O. Denton, on behalf of himself and other taxpaying citizens, to enjoin the City of Sapulpa, and its Mayor and Commissioner of Finance, from delivering certain bonds of the city. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Robt. B. Keenan, of Sapulpa, for plaintiff in error.

L. J Burt, of Sapulpa, for defendants in error.

BAILEY J.

This was an action begun in the district court of Creek county by plaintiff in error, a resident citizen and taxpayer of the city of Sapulpa, Creek county, Okl., on behalf of himself and other taxpaying citizens, seeking to enjoin the officers of the city of Sapulpa from issuing, disposing of, and delivering certain negotiable coupon bonds of the city of Sapulpa, which bonds had been regularly and lawfully voted at an election held in the city of Sapulpa. Said bonds were voted for the purpose of providing funds for the purchase of lands for cemetery purposes, to be owned, controlled, and managed exclusively by said city of Sapulpa. The trial court denied the application for injunction.

Under an agreed statement of facts, the court found that the city of Sapulpa was a city of the first class; that the election held for the purpose of determining whether such bonds should be issued was duly called, held, and conducted; that the land to be purchased and owned was to be controlled and managed exclusively by the city of Sapulpa for cemetery purposes. The court concluded as a matter of law that the city is acting within its legal and lawful authority in voting and issuing said bonds. Plaintiff in error in his brief says:

"The transcript will disclose that the facts relevant to the determination of this controversy were agreed upon by both parties and that there is but one proposition of law involved: Is a public cemetery a public utility?"

The answer to this question must be found in the provision of section 27, article 10, of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, which provides:

"Any incorporated city or town in this state may, by a majority of the qualified property tax paying voters of such city or town, voting at an election to be held for that purpose, be allowed to become indebted in a larger amount than that specified in section twenty-six, for the purpose of purchasing or constructing public utilities, or for repairing the same, to be owned exclusively by such city."

This court has had frequent occasion to consider the meaning of the words "public utiltities," and to decide what constitutes a public utility within the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution; this court having held that such public conveniences and necessities as sewers, a convention hall, public parks, and fire stations and equipment came within the embrace of the term "public utilities." State ex rel. Edwards v. Millar, 21 Okl. 448, 96 P. 747; State ex rel. Manhattan Const. Co. v. Barnes, 22 Okl. 191, 97 P. 997; Barnes v. Hill, 23 Okl. 207, 99 P. 927; City of Ardmore v. State, 24 Okl. 862, 104 P. 913; Coleman v. Frame, 26 Okl. 193, 109 P. 928, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 556; Hooper v. State, 26 Okl. 646, 110 P. 912; Dingman v. City of Sapulpa,

27 Okl. 116, 111 P. 319; Oklahoma City v. State ex rel. Edwards, 28 Okl. 780, 115 P. 1108. These cases indicate the weight and consideration given by this court to the elements of public safety, health, comfort, and public control, as such elements may affect and determine whether such utilities constitute a public utility; but this court has also defined these words in a more general sense, as is stated in State ex rel. Manhattan Const. Co., v. Barnes, supra, where it is said:

"The term 'public utility,' as used in this section of the Constitution, was before this court for construction in State v. Millar, 21 Okl. 448, 96 P. 747. In that case it was held that sewers are public utilities, within the meaning of the term as used in the Constitution, and Valley City Salt Co. v. Brown, 7 W. Va. 191, in which the term 'public utility' is construed as being synonymous

...