Garvin County v. Lindsay Bridge Co.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1912 |
| Citation | 124 P. 324,32 Okla. 784,1912 OK 353 |
| Parties | GARVIN COUNTY v. LINDSAY BRIDGE CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the judgment of a district court in a case appealed to it from a decision of a board of county commissioners.
Bridges built on used roads in the Indian Territory prior to statehood by a private corporation, organized for the purpose of building bridges, do not become public property, merely because the corporation permits the public to use them pending an effort to sell them to the county in which they are situated.
The intention of the owner to devote his property to public use is a necessary ingredient of a valid dedication.
A contract by a board of county commissioners to buy existing bridges for the sum of $6,000, payable in three yearly installments of $2,000 each, creates an indebtedness exceeding the income and revenue provided for the year of its creation, and is not valid without the assent of three-fifths of the voters of the county, as provided by section 26 of article 10 of the Constitution of Oklahoma.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Garvin County; R. McMillan, Judge.
From a judgment of the district court affirming an order of the County Commissioners of Garvin County in the matter of certain bridges of the Lindsay Bridge Company, the county brings error. Reversed and remanded.
J. D Mitchell, Co. Atty., of Pauls Valley, for plaintiff in error.
J. B Thompson, of Pauls Valley, and C. L. McArthur, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal from the district court of Garvin county affirming an order or contract of the board of county commissioners of Garvin county, by which they bound the county to accept from the Lindsay Bridge Company three bridges across the Washita river at the price of $6,000. The order was made the 6th day of January, 1909.
The appeal from the action of the board of county commissioners was taken upon the demand of seven taxpayers, under the provisions of section 1690, Snyder's Comp. Laws.
The first question to be determined is as to whether or not an appeal lies to this court from the decision of a district court sustaining the action of the board of county commissioners. Defendant in error contends that the appeal does not lie. Section 1690, Snyder's Comp. Laws, provides for an appeal to the district court from decisions of the board of county commissioners by any person aggrieved including the county by its county attorney, upon filing a bond, conditioned to prosecute the appeal and pay costs. Said section further provides that the county attorney, upon the written demand of at least seven taxpayers of the county, shall take an appeal from any action of the board of county commissioners, where the action relates to the interest or affairs of the county at large, or any portion thereof, when he deems it to the interest of the county so to do, and that in such case no bond shall be required or given. It is contended that this section of the statute limits the right of appeal to the district court, and that, the right thus being limited, no appeal will lie to this court from the action of the district court.
Section 1693, Snyder's Comp. Laws, provides that the appeal taken from the board of county commissioners to the district court shall be docketed as other causes pending thereon and shall be heard and determined de novo. Section 1694 provides that the district court may make a final judgment and cause it to be executed, "or may send the same back to the board, with an order how to proceed," and may compel the board by mandamus to comply.
Section 6067, Snyder's Comp. Laws, provides "that the Supreme Court may reverse, vacate or modify a judgment of the district court or county court," etc.
No reason is perceived why an appeal will not lie from the district court to this court. In the case of Crawford v. Board of County Commissioners of Noble County, 8 Okl. 450, 58 P. 616, it seems to be conceded that such an appeal would lie.
In the case of Allen v. County of Pittsburg, 28 Okl. 773, 116 P. 175, an appeal from the district court to the Supreme Court was acted upon here without comment, and apparently without objection from any of the interested parties. It seems to be the settled practice of this court to entertain such appeals, and no reason is pointed out for refusing to take jurisdiction of them. See Smith v. Board of Commissioners of Rogers County, 26 Okl. 819, 110 P. 669.
The case of Kerby v. County Commissioners of Clay County, Kansas, 71 Kan. 683, 81 P. 503, is not in point. That was a case where suit was brought against a private individual in the name of the county, without the consent of the county commissioners. It was there held that the control of such litigation was vested in the county commissioners, and that the county attorney could not bring such an action without their consent. Section 1690 was passed for the express purpose of protecting the taxpayers and citizens of the county against improper action by the commissioners, and was clearly intended to vest the right of appeal in the county attorney, when the requisite number of taxpayers requested it; and when the district court enters judgment on the appeal its judgment is appealable, just as is any other judgment of the district court.
The only difference in the first part of the section, giving the right of appeal to interested parties, and the second part, requiring the appeal to be taken on demand of seven taxpayers, is that under the first portion of the section a bond for costs of appeal must be given; while under the portion allowing the appeal upon demand of seven taxpayers no bond for costs was necessary.
It appears from the evidence that the Lindsay Bridge Company was incorporated for the purpose of building the bridges; and that the bridges were built just prior to statehood on existing public roads. It appears that an old bridge was torn down, and one of the new bridges built on or near the same site. There had formerly been a bridge on or near the site of another of the new bridges; but it had washed away some months before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial