Okla. City v. State ex rel. Edwards
Decision Date | 09 May 1911 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 2473 |
Citation | 28 Okla. 780,1911 OK 180,115 P. 1108 |
Parties | OKLAHOMA CITY et al. v. STATE ex rel. EDWARDS. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS--Public Indebtedness--"Public Utilities." The erection and equipment of public fire stations and street cleaning equipment and machinery to be owned by a city, are embraced within the term "public utilities," as used in section 27, article 10, of the Constitution.
2. SAME--Submission to Popular Vote--Sufficiency of Propositions. The terms "erecting and equipping public fire stations and purchasing equipment therefor to be devoted to the public use and to be owned by said city," and "purchasing and installing street cleaning equipment and machinery to be devoted to the public use and to be owned exclusively by said city," as contained in certain propositions submitted to the electors of a city of the first class to authorize the issuance of negotiable bonds of said city for the purchase, construction, or repair of public utilities, under section 27, article 10, of the Constitution, are sufficiently specific to apprise the voters of the nature of the public utility the city wishes to purchase, construct, or repair.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County.
Action by the State, on the relation of R. J. Edwards, against the City of Oklahoma City and Elmer C. Trueblood, as City Treasurer. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Jas. S. Twyford, for plaintiffs in error.
Flynn, Ames & Chambers, for defendant in error.
¶1 In the court below the State of Oklahoma, on the relation of R. J. Edwards, sought by mandamus to require Elmer C. Trueblood, as treasurer of the city of Oklahoma City, to deliver to said Edwards certain municipal bonds, which are designated as "$ 150,000 Fire Station and Equipment Bonds and $ 15,000 Street Cleaning Equipment Bonds." The petition alleges, in substance, and the answer admits, the regularity of all the proceedings, including the election, in reference to the execution of said bonds, and that said bonds were issued under and by virtue of section 27, article 10, of the Constitution, it being conceded that the indebtedness sought to be created thereby was in excess of the limit placed upon cities of the first class by section 26 of article 10 of the Constitution. The court below sustained a demurrer to the answer and required the delivery of said bonds. To reverse that order this proceeding in error was commenced.
¶2 The first proposition submitted to the voters was in the following language:
"The proposition of issuing the negotiable coupon bonds of the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, to the aggregate amount of one hundred and fifty thousand ($ 150,000.00) dollars for the purpose of providing funds for the purpose of erecting and equipping public fire stations, and purchasing equipment therefor, to be devoted to the public use, and to be owned exclusively by the said city, and the levy and collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on said bonds as it falls due, and also to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof within twenty-five (25) years from their date, said bonds to be dated on the 1st day of August, A. D. 1910, to become due on the 1st day of August, A. D. 1935, and to bear interest at a rate not to exceed five per centum (5%) per annum, payable semi-annually."
¶3 The second proposition was in the following language:
"The proposition of issuing negotiable coupon bonds of the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, to the aggregate amount of fifteen thousand ($ 15,000.00) dollars for the purpose of providing funds for the purpose of purchasing and installing street cleaning equipment and machinery to be devoted to the public use and to be owned exclusively by the said city, and the levy and collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on said bonds as it falls due, and also to constitute a sinking fund...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dunagan v. Town of Red Rock
...all such property purchased and to be exclusively owned by the city may well be classed as public utilities. In Oklahoma City et al. v. Edwards, 28 Okla. 780, 115 P. 1108, bonds for the purpose of erecting and equipping public fire stations and purchasing equipment therefor, to be devoted t......
-
Town of Afton v. Gill
...R. A. [N. S.] 556; Hooper v. State, 26 Okla. 646, 110 P. 912; Dingman v. City of Sapulpa, 27 Okla. 116, 111 P. 319; Oklahoma City v. State ex rel., 28 Okla. 780, 115 P. 1108), and has in these cases generally held that what was comprehended by section 27, art. 10, of the Constitution, was s......
-
Denton v. City of Sapulpa
...R. A. (N. S.) 556; Hooper v. State, 26 Okla. 646, 110 P. 912; Dingman v. City of Sapulpa, 27 Okla. 116, 111 P. 319; Oklahoma City v. State ex rel., 28 Okla. 780, 115 P. 1108. These cases indicate the weight and consideration given by this court to the elements of public safety, health, comf......
-
City of Sulphur v. State ex rel. Lankford
...section 26, art. 10, Constitution, for this court in a number of cases, notably, Bryan v. Menefee, 21 Okla. 1, 95 P. 471, City v. Edwards, 28 Okla. 780, 115 P. 1108, and State v. Millar, 21 Okla. 448, 96 P. 747, has held that a city by virtue of section 27, art. 10, of the Constitution may ......