Oklahoma Ry Co v. Severns Paving Co
Decision Date | 08 December 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 106,106 |
Citation | 251 U.S. 104,40 S.Ct. 73,64 L.Ed. 168 |
Parties | OKLAHOMA RY. CO. v. SEVERNS PAVING CO. et al |
Court | U.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:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville
... ... 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
- Chair King, Inc. v. Gte Mobilnet of Houston
-
Marland v. Gillespie
...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......