Oklahoma City v. Shields
Decision Date | 16 September 1908 |
Citation | 100 P. 559,22 Okla. 265,1908 OK 195 |
Parties | OKLAHOMA CITY v. SHIELDS. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Act April 17, A. D. 1908 (Acts 1908, p. 166, c. 10), entitled "An act to provide for the improvement of streets and other public places within cities of the first class, by grading, paving, macadamizing, curbing, guttering and draining the same, and declaring an emergency," is valid.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 103, 105; Dec. Dig. § 37. [*]]
The cost and expenses of making such improvements along such street, where the street railway has two tracks laid, shall be taxed against such railway as provided by said act, two feet on each side of said tracks and the paving in between said tracks.
The costs and expenses of instituting and laying drainage pipes for the purpose of macadamizing, curbing, guttering, and draining, including the cost of all manholes, catch-basins etc., can be taxed against the property fronting and abutting on said street along which such paving is made and pipes laid.
[Ed Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig § 1021; Dec. Dig. § 417. [*]]
An assessment can be made against a steam railroad company to pay for that portion of its right of way more than the portion between the rails and two feet on each side thereof and the assessment therefor shall be the same as against individuals or natural proprietors.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1032; Dec. Dig. § 425. [*]]
The same rule applies equally to street railways who own any portion of their right of way and abutting lands, unless section 3, art. 4, c. 9, p. 141, Sess. Laws Okl. T. 1903, which provides that "all licenses or franchises heretofore granted to any street railway company authorizing the construction and operation of an electric street railroad in any city of the first class in the territory of Oklahoma, and which have not become forfeited or lapsed by their terms, are hereby ratified, legalized and confirmed," operates to exempt such railway companies as had a license or franchise granted for such purpose by a city of the first class, and had not become forfeited or lapsed by its terms prior to the passage of said act.
(a) Quaere: As to whether or not said section 3, art. 4, operated to exempt such railway companies, except as stipulated in the franchise, the question is reserved and not determined in this case.
It is the duty of the mayor and council to designate under one resolution and under one contract one particular kind of material for such paving or other improvements.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 811, 812; Dec. Dig. § 304. [*]]
The city can make a general levy for the payment of the cost and expenses of the improvements of street intersections against all of the property owners of said city.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 2039; Dec. Dig. § 962. [*]]
The declaring of an emergency by the Legislature, when it is expressed in the act that such measure is immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, when such act is not for the purpose of carrying into effect provisions relating to the initiative and referendum, or a general appropriation bill, or does not include the granting of a franchise or license to a corporation or individual to extend longer than one year, nor provision for the purchase or sale of real estate, nor the renting or incumbering of real property for a longer term than one year, is conclusive on the courts.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 129-131; Dec. Dig. § 70. [*]]
Act April 17, A. D. 1908 (Laws 1908, p. 172, c. 10, § 5), relating to paving, providing that creates an incumbrance upon said realty for a longer term than one year, and said act did not take effect until 90 days after the adjournment of the session of the Legislature at which it was passed.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. § 332; Dec. Dig. § 251. [*] ]
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; J. G. Lowe, Judge.
Action by John W. Shields against the City of Oklahoma City. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
A city ordinance making it the duty of a street railway company to pave between its rails, but not expressly exempting the railway company from any additional paving, does not preclude the imposition of such additional burden upon the railway company so as to relieve it from compliance with Act April 17, 1908, Acts 1908, p. 166, c. 10, requiring a street railway company to pave between its rails, and in addition, two feet on each side thereof.
On the 20th day of July, A. D. 1908, the plaintiff in error, as defendant, and the defendant in error, as plaintiff, filed in the district court of Oklahoma county an agreed case, in words and figures as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial