Grove Bridge Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 03 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | 18625. |
| Parties | GROVE BRIDGE CO. et al. v. STATE ex rel. HAMPTON, Co. Atty. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Withdrawn Corrected, and Refiled Nov. 13, 1928.
Syllabus by the Court.
The construction of a tollbridge erected on a public highway under a franchise permitting the collection of toll from the public, constitutes a "dedication" to the public's use, subject only to the right to collect tolls and the only interest of the holders of the franchise therein is the right to collect tolls as compensation for the building of the bridge, and when the franchise terminates the bridge reverts to the state disburdened of toll.
The purchaser of a tollbridge, constructed and erected on a public highway, takes the property and franchise of the grantor, subject to all conditions and limitations contained in the original franchise.
The right to collect toll for passage over a bridge erected on a public highway is not a common-law right, but can be exercised only through a legislative grant, and, when such grant terminates, the authority to exact toll from the public ceases.
The prolongation of a franchise to collect toll over a bridge on a public highway may not be effected by the levy through the state and county officers of a tax which the corporation pay; if such were the law, mere administrative offices could successfully abrogate the Constitution, nullify legislative enactments, confer and extend special favors and franchises, which the legislative department of the government itself, by general law, would be unable to do.
The state, on relation of the county attorney, may maintain a suit to restrain an obstruction erected for the purpose of enforcing the collection of toll charges against the traveling public over a bridge wherein the franchise and license to collect toll had long since expired.
Appeal from District Court, Delaware County; Wayne W. Bayless, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of W. F. Hampton, County Attorney of Delaware County, against the Grove Bridge Company and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. Opinion withdrawn; cause orally argued; opinion corrected, readopted, and ordered refiled.
W. H. Kornegay, of Vinita, and F. D. Adams, of Miami, for plaintiffs in error.
J. W. Miller, G. W. Goad, and W. F. Hampton, Co. Atty., all of Jay, for defendant in error.
On the 16th day of February, 1927, W. F. Hampton, county attorney of Delaware county, Okl., on relation of the State, filed a petition in the district court of Delaware county in which it was alleged that the defendants were willfully and wrongfully engaged in the collection of toll on a certain bridge located across Grand river in Delaware county, in the state of Oklahoma, and and that Delaware county, at great expense, had caused to be graded and graveled a public road between Grove and Bernice, Okl., on which was located said public bridge.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, as a means of enforcing toll collections from the public, caused to be placed at each entrance to said bridge an iron or wooden rail which prevented the passage of travelers thereon until toll charges were paid by said travelers.
Plaintiff further alleged that defendants were claiming the right to charge toll for passage across said bridge by virtue of a certain franchise granted by the United States court for the Northern District of Indian Territory on the 4th day of February, 1903, which ran for a period of 20 years; that, under all the terms and conditions of said order and judgment of said court granting said franchise, said franchise had fully expired on the ------ day of February, 1925.
The plaintiff prayed that an injunction be granted restraining and enjoining said defendants from enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the collection of toll from persons desiring to cross the bridge on said public highway.
A restraining order and temporary injunction were granted against said defendants restraining them from collecting or attempting to enforce the collection of toll charges, and thereafter the injunction was made permanent, and from this judgment the defendants have appealed, and, from the order of the court refusing to decree title to the bridge property in the state, the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal.
A brief statement of the manner in which the owners of the bridge property acquired their right and franchise therein is as follows: An Act of Congress of February 18, 1901 (31 U.S. Stat. at Large, 794), put in force in the Indian Territory sections 504 to 509 of Mansfield's Digest of the state of Arkansas. These sections of that statute gave to the county courts of Arkansas the right to grant the privilege of building turnpikes and the erection of tollbridges, and further empowered the said courts of the said state to fix the charges to be made for the use of said improvements by the public. Said act of Congress further provided that, wherever in said sections of Mansfield's Digest the words "county courts" occurred, the words "United States courts" shall be substituted therefor.
Therefore said act of Congress provided a method by which persons might secure from the United States court then existing in the Indian Territory a franchise to construct a tollbridge and to make such charges as were fixed by the said court.
Pursuant to said act of Congress, W. L. McWilliams and F. D. Adams made an application to the United States District Court of the Northern District in Indian Territory for a franchise to build and construct a certain tollbridge at a public crossing known as Carey's Ferry.
On the 4th day of February, 1903, said court entered its order granting to said applicants a franchise and the right to build, construct, and maintain a tollbridge at Carey's Ferry, for a term of 20 years, and to charge and collect reasonable tolls for the use of said bridge.
It thereafter appears that the Grove Bridge Company became the owners and assignees of said franchise; and that said company filed an application in the United States court for the Northern District of the Indian Territory for the purpose of causing said court to fix the rates of toll to be thereafter charged by the said bridge company; and that on the 14th day of November, 1907, said court entered its order fixing the rates of toll to be charged the public by said bridge company, and, in addition thereto, the order provided:
"That the grant of franchise for the erection of a tollbridge over Grand river in the Indian Territory, at or near Carey's Ferry on said river, for a period of 20 years, with the right to charge and collect tolls for the use of said bridge as a tollbridge, made by this court to W. L. McWilliams, F. D. Adams, and their associates and assigns, on the ------ day of February, 1903, and afterwards assigned by said grantees to their assignee, the Grove Bridge Company, a corporation, be, and the same is hereby, confirmed in the assignee of said grantees, the said Grove Bridge Company, for a period of 20 years from the date of the opening of said tollbridge over Grand river at Carey's ferry, to public travel on February 1, 1905."
The plaintiffs in error, in their brief at page 31, state:
The bridge company in its answer admitted that it had sought to enforce and collect toll charges from the public in the manner alleged in plaintiff's petition.
The bridge company in its answer further alleged that the tolls received by said bridge company during the time that it had maintained and operated said bridge was not sufficient to pay the expenses of operating the same, and did not pay 6 per centum on the capital invested to the time of the filing of said answer.
The bridge company having admitted in its answer that it had enforced the collection of toll from the traveling public in the manner alleged in the plaintiff's petition, it then becomes material to learn under what legal franchise or right travelers upon a road maintained by the county and state may be compelled to pay toll charges, in order to further enjoy the privilege of using said public highway.
It is evident that such authority must be plain, adequate, and unequivocal.
The bridge company, in justification of its acts, relies therefore upon several reasons. In its answer to plaintiff's petition it sets out its charter and franchise granted by the court, and, in addition thereto, it claimed that it had not received a sum sufficient from the toll collected to reimburse the owners for their investment; that it had not earned an income of 6 per centum per year; that the land upon which the abutments rested had been purchased from an Indian allotee; that it had paid taxes on said property; that it had secured a license from the Corporation Commission of the state of Oklahoma.
It further contends that, even though its franchise had expired, they still had a right to retain said property and to collect toll from the public.
The bridge company cites a number of cases where utility companies, after the expiration of their franchise, were permitted to retain title to their property.
The district court refused to adjudge title of the bridge property either in the county or state; it simply enjoined the bridge company from obstructing passage by the public over the bridge, or from attempting to collect toll charges made against the traveling public over said bridge.
As heretofore noted, the franchise in question was granted to individuals, who thereafter assigned their...
To continue reading
Request your trial