In re City of Miami

• Decision Date: 14 July 1914
• Docket Number: 5909.
• Citation: 141 P. 1174,43 Okla. 205,1914 OK 331
• Parties: IN RE CITY OF MIAMI.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

141 P. 1174

43 Okla. 205, 1914 OK 331

IN RE CITY OF MIAMI.

No. 5909.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

July 14, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

Where with the proceeds of bonds issued by a city pursuant to the provisions of section 27, art. 10, of the Constitution it is purposed to purchase a bridge across a stream between a city and a township, to be owned jointly by such city and the township, held, that such bridge would not be a public utility owned exclusively by the city within the terms of said section and article, and the bond commissioner will not be compelled to approve such bonds.

Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; John J. Carney, Judge.

In the matter of the submission of controversy as to the issuance of bridge bonds 1913 by the City of Miami. From a judgment that the bond commissioners do not approve said bonds, the city brings error. Affirmed.

A. C Wallace, City Atty., of Miami, for appellant.

Chas West, Atty. Gen., and Jos. L. Hull, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BLEAKMORE J.

For the purpose of issuing bridge bonds pursuant to the provisions of section 27, art. 10, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, the city of Miami, by virtue of an ordinance duly passed by the mayor and board of commissioners, submitted to its qualified property taxpaying voters this proposition:

"Shall the mayor and board of commissioners of the city of Miami, Ottawa county, state of Oklahoma, issue the bonds of the city of Miami, in the county of Ottawa, state of Oklahoma, in the aggregate sum of eighty-nine hundred dollars ($8,900), to run for ten years from the date thereof, bearing interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, payable semiannually, for the purpose of obtaining money to jointly purchase, by condemnation or otherwise, with Narcissa township, Ottawa county, Okl., the toll bridge and franchise of the Miami Toll Bridge Company and all appurtenances thereto belonging, including right of way and approaches, and for the further purpose of constructing and building, jointly with said township, an approach to said bridge on the west side thereof, said bridge, approaches, and appurtenances to be jointly owned and maintained by the city of Miami and Narcissa township and definitely located as follows, to wit * * *"

An election was regularly held, and said proposition received the assent of the requisite number of voters. The bonds were issued and presented to the bond commissioner, who refused to approve the same, for the reason that the purpose for which the money is to be borrowed is not a public utility within the meaning of section 27, art. 10, of the Constitution, and for other reasons. The matter was submitted to the court below upon an agreed case, and from the holding of that court adjudging that the bond commissioner do not approve said bonds, the city...