McClintock v. City of Roseburg

Decision Date08 January 1929
Citation273 P. 331,127 Or. 698
PartiesMCCLINTOCK v. CITY OF ROSEBURG ET AL.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

In Bank.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County; J. W. Hamilton, Judge.

Suit by L. E. McClintock against the City of Roseburg and others. Decree of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This suit was instituted to enjoin the city of Roseburg from issuing and selling its bonds in the amount of $25,000 for the purpose of establishing an airport near that city. The matter was submitted to the voters of said city and the bonds authorized. No question is raised in the suit regarding the legality of the election. The only part of the proceeding challenged is the right of the city to construct and maintain an airport at the expense of the taxpayers. This question is submitted under two headings: First, is the city authorized by the necessary legislation to construct and own an airport at the expense of the taxpayers? Second, is an airport a public enterprise which can be supported by taxation? The circuit court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

R. L Whipple, of Roseburg, for appellant.

Guy Cordon and Carl E. Wimberly, both of Roseburg, and M. L Hallmark, of Waldport, for respondents.

COSHOW C.J.

We think the statute is very clear and plainly authorizes municipalities to maintain and own airports. The reading of the statute is as follows:

"Sec 7091. Any incorporated city or town of this state shall have the right to appropriate any private real property, * * * for the general use and benefit of the people of said city or town, including real property, for an aviation field or park. * * *" 1925 Gen. L. 162, c. 106.

This language does not require any construction or interpretation. It does not admit of argument or controversy as to its meaning. The city, having taken the necessary steps to authorize the issuance of bonds by an appropriate amendment of its charter and ordaining the proper ordinance, is authorized to issue bonds in the sum of $25,000 for an airport, unless the purpose of establishing and maintaining an airport is private rather than public.

What is a public use is not capable of an absolute definition. A public use changes with changing conditions of society, new appliances in the sciences and other changes brought about by increased population and modes of transportation and communication. We cannot close our eyes to the great growth in the use of flying machines during the past decade. This growth has been especially noticeable during the last two or three years. We must take notice that a large quantity of mail is being daily transported into the various parts of the country. Expressage and even freight is being transported by aeroplane in large and rapidly increasing quantities. Transportation by air appears to be increasing so rapidly that we may confidently expect that soon a large portion of the mail and express will be transported by aeroplane. An airport owned by the city open to the use of all aeroplanes is for the benefit of the city as a community, and not of any particular individuals therein. It is therefore a public enterprise. Aeroplanes travel the "trackless air." The only way an aeroplane company could acquire a monopoly would be through monopolizing the airport....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Burnham v. Mayor & Aldermen of Beverly
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 24 June 1941
    ...728;State v. Jackson, 121 Ohio St. 186, 167 N.E. 396;Ardmore v. Excise Board of Carter County, 155 Okl. 126, 8 P.2d 2;McClintock v. Roseburg, 127 Or. 698, 273 P. 331;Wentz v. Philadelphia, 301 Pa. 261, 151 A. 883;Spokane v. Williams, 157 Wash. 120, 288 P. 258. We do not think that the city ......
  • People ex rel. Curren v. Wood
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 19 September 1945
    ...Dist., 262 U.S. 710, 43 S.Ct. 694, 67 L.Ed. 1194;City of Wichita v. Clapp, 125 Kan. 100, 263 P. 12, 63 A.L.R. 478; McClintock v. City of Roseburg, 127 Or. 698, 273 P. 331;Monterey Peninsula Airport Dist. v. Mason, 19 Cal.2d 446, 121 P.2d 727;Prince v. Crocker, 166 Mass. 347, 44 N.E. 446,32 ......
  • Morris v. City of Salem et al.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 12 November 1946
    ...to time, be demanded by changing conditions of society, increased population, or improved methods of transportation. McClintock v. Roseburg, 127 Or. 698, 700, 273 P. 331; Hickey v. Riley, supra. Such additional usages do not impose additional servitudes upon the land, nor do they constitute......
  • Aviation Services v. Board of Adjustment of Hanover Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 9 January 1956
    ...of St. Louis, supra; State ex rel, Hile v. City of Cleveland, 26 Ohio App. 265, 160 N.E. 241 (Ct.App.1927); McClintock v. City of Roseburg, 127 Or. 698, 273 P. 331 (Sup.Ct.1929); Wentz v. City of Philadelphia, 301 Pa. 261, 151 A. 883 (Sup.Ct.1930); Krenwinkle v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT