Grand River Dam Auth. v. Grand-Hydro

• Decision Date: 10 March 1941
• Docket Number: Case Number: 29815
• Citation: 1941 OK 79,188 Okla. 506,111 P.2d 488
• Parties: GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY v. GRAND-HYDRO et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1941 OK 79

111 P.2d 488

188 Okla. 506

GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY v. GRAND-HYDRO et al.

Case Number: 29815

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 10, 1941

Syllabus

¶0 1. STATES--COSTS--Rule of immunity of state from suit without consent and such incidents as costs not applicable to governmental agency created by state.

The rule of immunity of the state from actions against it, without its consent, and incidents of such actions such as costs, has no application to a governmental agency created by the state.

2. SAME--Power conferred by state "to sue and be sued" presumed to include such incident as payment of costs.

The power conferred by the state "to sue and be sued" will be presumed to carry with it incidents of the exercise of such a right and liability. One of which is payment of costs of an action at law or a special proceeding.

3. SAME--EMINENT DOMAIN--Statutory provision requiring governmental agency exercising powers of eminent domain to pay "costs and expenses of first assessment."

By express provision of law a governmental agency exercising the powers of eminent domain, "Shall in all cases pay the costs and expenses of the first assessment." Section 11934, O. S. 1931, 66 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 56.

Appeal from District Court, Delaware County; Wm. M. Thomas, Judge.

Mandamus by the Grand River Dam Authority, a public corporation, against Grand-Hydro, a corporation, et al. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

R. L. Davidson, of Tulsa, Q. B. Boydstun and Jesse L. Ballard, both of Vinita, and Gayle M. Pickens, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

W. Hendrex Wolfe, County Atty., of Jay, and T. L. Marteney, of Pryor, for defendants in error.

Harve N. Langley and A. L. Battenfield, both of Pryor, and Frank Nesbitt, of Miami, of counsel, who assisted in the brief.

RILEY, J.

¶1 Grand River Dam Authority appeals from a judgment denying mandamus sought to compel the clerk of the district court of Delaware county to accept awards made by commissioners in condemnation proceedings without deposits for costs.

¶2 The Authority commenced proceedings to condemn lands in Delaware County. Commissioners appointed made awards as to separate tracts of land in the total amount of $4,533.64. The Authority made an initial deposit for costs and additions amounting to $400, but at the time of the awards the costs accrued amounted to $738.88. The Authority mailed checks to the court clerk in the amount of the awards ($4,533.64), which the court clerk refused to accept, demanding first additional costs due, in the sum of $357.22, which would include 1 per cent. of the amounts awarded, levied as costs for paying it out. These proceedings ensued, resulting in an order directing the Authority to pay the costs and denying the writ of mandamus, from which it appeals.

¶3 The Authority is a governmental agency, article 4, chap. 70, S. L. 1935, with power to sue and be sued. Its transactions are akin to those of private enterprises, and the mere fact that it is an agency of the government does not extend to it the immunity of the sovereign.

¶4 Pittman v. Home Owners' Loan Corp., 308 U. S. 21, 60 S. Ct. 15; Sloan Shipyards v. U. S. Fleet Corp., 258 U. S. 549, 66 L. Ed. 762, 42 S. Ct. 386. There is nothing in the act creating the Authority which suggests any intention of the Legislature that in suing or being sued the Authority should not be subject to the ordinary incident of litigation in being liable for costs which might properly be awarded against a private party in a similar action.

¶5 As to freedom of the state from legal responsibility, see State ex rel. Com'rs of the Land Office v. Johnson, Sheriff, 165 Okla. 190, 25 P.2d 659; Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U. S. 381, 59 S. Ct. 516. In the latter case it was held that: "because the doctrine gives the government a privileged position, it has been appropriately confined." But see Natalbany Lumber Co., Ltd., v. Louisana Tax Commission, 175 La. 110, 143 So. 20, extending the immunity of costs to a state board, public officer and governmental agency.

¶6 However, federally, "the government does not become the conduit of its immunity in suits against its agents or instrumentalities merely because they do its work." The Keifer Case, supra.

¶7 The Legislature may bestow its immunity upon its instrumentality, but the issue is whether it has done so. As to the agency, immunity is not presumed but is strictly construed. Federal Housing Administration v. Burr, 309 U. S. 242, 60 S. Ct. 488.

¶8 Authority of such an agency to sue and be sued without more presupposes a liability for the ordinary incidents of an action or special proceedings. Section 511, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 921, requires court clerks to...