Hancock v. City of Muskogee, Okl
Decision Date | 09 June 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 360,360 |
Citation | 250 U.S. 454,39 S.Ct. 528,63 L.Ed. 1081 |
Parties | HANCOCK et al. v. CITY OF MUSKOGEE, OKL., et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. B. B. Blakeney and James H. Maxey, both of Tulsa, Okl., and Grant Foreman and James D. Simms, both of Muskogee, Okl., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Nathan A. Gibson and Joseph L. Hull, both of Muskogee, Okl., for defendants in error.
Plaintiffs in error, owners of real estate in the cityo f Muskogee, brought suit in an Oklahoma state court seeking an injunction to restrain the city and its officials from encumbering their lands with a special assessment to pay for the construction of a sewer in sewer district No. 12 of that city, contending that the statutes of the state and the ordinances of the city under which the district was created and the cost of the sewers therein assessed against the property within the district were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, in that they deprived plaintiffs of their property without due process of law. The trial court refused relief, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed its judgment (168 Pac. 445), and the case comes here by writ of error.
The statutes, as they existed at the time the proceedings in question were had, are to be found in Snyder's Comp. Laws Okl. 1909, §§ 984-993. They authorize the mayor and councilmen in any municipal corporation having a population of not less than 1,000 to establish a general sewer system composed of public, district, and private sewers, and also to cause district sewers to be constructed within districts having limits prescribed by ordinance; the cost of district sewers to be apportioned against all lots and pieces of ground in the district in proportion to area, disregarding improvements and excluding the public highways.
It is contended that the statute is void because it gives no notice to property owners and makes no provision for hearing them as to the formation of the district or its boundaries, the proposed plan or method of building the sewer, or the amount to be assessed upon property in the district. While it is conceded to have been established by previous decisions of this court that, where the Legislature fixes by law the area of a sewer district or the property which is to be assessed, no advance notice to the property owner of such legislative action is necessary in order to constitute due process of law, it is insisted that in the present case the Legislature has not done this, and hence it is essential to the protection of the fundamental rights of the property owner that at some stage of the proceeding he have notice and an opportunity to be heard upon the question whether his property is erroneously included in the sewer district because it cannot be benefited by the sewer, or for any other reason is improperly subjected to assessment.
But we find it to be settled by decisions of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which as to this are conclusive upon us, that in respect to the establishment and construction of local sewer systems and the exercise of the power of taxation in aid of this purpose, the entire legislative power of the state has been delegated to the municipalities. In City of Perry v. Davis, 18 Okl. 427, p. 445, 90 Pac. 865, p. 870, referring to this same legislation the court held:
The court further held that the act constituted due process, and that the passage...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sebastian Bridge Dist. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
... ... Moss told me when we went before ... him and the board-- John Ayers was a good man, the city of ... Ft. Smith never suffered a greater loss in any of its ... citizens than it did when John ... Dist. of ... Columbia, 170 U.S. 45, 52, 18 Sup.Ct. 521, 42 L.Ed. 943; ... Hancock v. Muscogee, 250 U.S. 454, 458, 39 Sup.Ct ... 528, 63 L.Ed. 1081. Again, the ascertainment of ... ...
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Lakeland
... ... 254, 36 S.Ct. 58, 60 L.Ed. 266; ... Valley Farms v. Westchester County, 261 U.S. 155, 43 ... S.Ct. 261, 67 L.Ed. 585; Hancock v. City of ... Muskogee, 250 U.S. 454, 39 S.Ct. 528, 63 L.Ed. 1081; ... Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Barber, 197 U.S. 430, 25 ... S.Ct. 466, 49 ... ...
-
Dinneen v. Rider
...sections 1432, 1434, 1436; Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U. S. 254, 36 S. Ct 58, 60 L. Ed. 266; Hancock v. Muskogee, 250 U. S. 454, 39 S. Ct. 528, 63 L. Ed. 1081; Browning v. Hooper, 269 U. S. 396, 46 S. Ct. 141, 70 L. Ed. 330; Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester, 261 U. S. 155, ......
-
Lee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... Farms Co. v. Westchester County, 261 U.S. 155, 43 S.Ct ... 261, 67 L.Ed. 585; Hancock v. City of Muskogee, 250 ... U.S. 454, 39 S.Ct. 528, 63 L.Ed. 1081. But here in fact the ... ...
-
Making constitutional doctrine in a realist age.
...rights or interests. Typically, of course, the Court was referring to property or contract rights. See, eg., Hancock v. City of Muskogee, 250 U.S. 454, 456 (1919) ("[I]t is essential to the protection of the fundamental rights of the property owner that ... he have notice ...."); Butler v. ......