Oklahoma Ry Co v. Severns Paving Co

Decision Date08 December 1919
Docket NumberNo. 106,106
Citation251 U.S. 104,40 S.Ct. 73,64 L.Ed. 168
PartiesOKLAHOMA RY. CO. v. SEVERNS PAVING CO. et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. John B. Dudley, Henry G. Snyder, and Henry E. Asp, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. D. A. Richardson, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 105 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1909 the owners platted Linwood Place, adjacent to Oklahoma City, for building lots, streets, etc. To procure extension of a street car line therein, they dedicated a strip forty feet in width, lying along the center of what is now known as Linwood Boulevard, to plaintiff in error's predecessor, 'its successors and assigns, with a like effect as though deeded and conveyed to said company in fee simple by separate deed,' on condition, however, that the property should be subject to reasonable police regulations, that the grantee should construct crossings over the tracks and also put down curbing and pave the crossings whenever the boulevard itself should be paved. Subordinate to above grant the streets as shown on the plat were dedicated to the public for ordinary purposes of travel. Afterwards car tracks were laid in the center of the forty-foot strip and the corporate limits of Oklahoma City were extended to include Linwood Place.

In order to provide funds for paving the public roadways along Linwood Boulevard, the city undertook in 1910 to lay a tax upon the adjacent property, and directed that it be apportioned according to benefits. The board of commissioners apportioned to the central strip as its proper share of the expenses, $12,046.16. Instead of assessing this amount directly against the property, the city council erroneously assessed it against the street car company. Thereafter, the city and the Severns Company, which had put down the paving, procured from the district court of Oklahoma county a mandamus directing a reassessment against the land itself, but a hearing upon objections thereto was not specifically provided for.

The Supreme Court of the state (170 Pac. 216) declared:

'The fee title to the strip of land in question here appears to be in the railway company. * * * Its right is not merely an intangible privilege or an easement, but under the terms of the dedication is a fee simple title. * * * The dominion and control of the strip of land in question here is not in the city...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1922
    ... ... may charge railroad's property abutting street with ... proportionate part of paving expense. A city may charge a ... railroad's property that abuts, fronts, or borders on the ... Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. Police Court, 251 U.S. 22, ... 40 S.Ct. 79, 64 L.Ed. 112; Oklahoma R. Co. v. Severns ... Paving Co., 251 U.S. 104, 40 S.Ct. 71, 64 L.Ed. 168; ... Erie R. R. v ... ...
  • Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 15, 1996
  • Chair King, Inc. v. Gte Mobilnet of Houston
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 6, 2004
  • Marland v. Gillespie
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1934
    ...U.S. 430, 25 S.Ct. 466, 49 L.Ed. 819; Branson v. Bush, 251 U.S. 182, 40 S.Ct. 113, 64 L.Ed. 215. The rule appears to have been accepted in Oklahoma. Compare Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. Tulsa, 45 Okl. 382, 145 P. 398; Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Severns Paving Co., 251 U.S. 104, 40 S.Ct. 73, 64......
  • 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