In re Lankford
| Decision Date | 28 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | 8591. |
| Citation | 178 P. 673,72 Okla. 40,1919 OK 30 |
| Parties | In re LANKFORD. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Subsequent to the adoption of Revised Laws 1910, and prior to the enactment of chapter 111, Session Laws 1917, the city of Waurika was without authority to require citizens of said city to work upon its streets and highways, or pay in lieu thereof a certain sum of money.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Municipal corporations can exercise only such powers of legislation as are given them by the lawmaking power of the state.
The state's grants of legislative power to municipalities are strictly construed against a municipality, and any fairly reasonable doubt as to grant of the power will be resolved against the municipality.
The general power of a municipality to control its streets and highways does not include the power to compel citizens to work thereon.
Original petition by Bruce Lankford for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner discharged.
J. H Harper, of Waurika, for petitioner.
Joseph T. Dillard and Guy Green, both of Waurika, for respondent.
Bruce Lankford filed an original petition in this court for the writ of habeas corpus, and alleged that he was restrained of his liberty and unlawfully imprisoned by the police authorities of the city of Waurika because of an alleged violation of section 3 of Ordinance No. 35 of said city requiring all male persons between the ages of 21 and 50 years, who had resided in said city for 30 days (with certain exceptions), to perform road duties for 4 days, or pay a money tax in lieu thereof. The alleged offense occurred in 1916. It is agreed that at the time of taking the federal census during the year 1910 the town of Waurika had a population of 2,928, and after the taking of said census said town was changed to a city of the first class, and elected a complement of city officials, as provided by the statutes applicable to cities, and has since said time exercised the powers and privileges conferred by the general statutes of this state on cities of the class to which it belonged, but had not framed or adopted a charter as authorized by the Constitution and laws of the state.
The only question necessary to be determined is whether the ordinance for the violation of which petitioner was arrested was a valid exercise of legislative power by the city of Waurika. Article 12, c. 10, Rev. Laws 1910, was the governing statute in force at the time of the alleged offense, which article prescribed the manner of improving the streets avenues, lanes, alleys, and other public places in cities of this state. Said article contained no provision authorizing citizens to require any of its inhabitants to perform work or labor upon its streets, avenues, and alleys. Municipal corporations can exercise only such powers of legislation as are given them by the lawmaking power of the state, and grants of such powers are strictly construed against the corporation, and when any fairly reasonable doubt exists as to the grant of the power such doubt is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the existence of the power is denied. In re Unger, 22 Okl. 755, 98 P. 999, 132 Am. St. Rep. 670; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Tulsa, 45 Okl. 382, 145 P. 398. By section 5724, Stat. 1893 (Compiled Laws 1909, § 7832), each incorporated city of this state containing more than 300 inhabitants was constituted a separate road district, with power to appoint a road overseer, and to require four days' work upon its streets, or to expend the money paid in lieu thereof in improvement of the streets and alleys of such city. This section was not carried into Revised Laws 1910, as adopted by the act of March 3, 1911 (Laws 1910-11, c. 39), and was therefore expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial