Perrine v. Bonaparte, Co.
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Citation | 140 Okla. 165,1929 OK 439,282 P. 332 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 19094 |
| Parties | PERRINE v. BONAPARTE, Co. Treas. |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1929 |
1929 OK 439
282 P. 332
140 Okla. 165
PERRINE
v.
BONAPARTE, Co. Treas.
Case Number: 19094
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: October 15, 1929
¶0 1. Municipal Corporations--Municipalities Authorized to Engage in Business Enterprise.
Every municipal corporation within this state shall have the right to engage in any business or enterprise which may be engaged in by a person, firm, or corporation by virtue of franchise from said corporation.
2. Same--Municipally Owned Utility--Neither Rates to Be Charged nor Disposition of Profits Prescribed by Law.
Neither statute nor Constitution specifically prescribes rates to be charged by municipally owned utility; neither statute nor Constitution specifically prescribes purpose to which profits derived from municipally owned utility must be appropriated. (Const. art. 18, sec. 6; Comp. St. 1921, sec. 4507.)
3. Same--Tax Levy to Pay Public Utility Bonds Required by Constitution.
Compliance with Constitution requiring tax levy by city to pay for bonds issued to buy public utility is part of contractual obligation of bonds; Legislature cannot take away rights or relieve city of duties imposed by constitutional provision permitting cities to issue bonds to buy utilities. (Const. art. 10, secs. 26, 27.)
4. Same--Tax Levy Held Valid.
An ad valorem tax levy to pay interest and create sinking fund to pay bonds issued for municipally owned utility held valid. (Const. art. 10, secs. 27, 28.)
5. Evidence--Judicial Notice of Provisions of City Charters.
Courts take judicial cognizance of the charter provisions of cities under a charter form of government for the reason that by both the Constitution and statutes such charter provisions, when not inconsistent with the Constitution, supersede the statutes pertaining to municipal affairs, and thereby become the superior law of the state in matters pertaining to municipal affairs, and the courts are charged with knowledge of such provisions.
Adelbert Brown and Gordon Stater, for plaintiff in error.
George M. Callihan, Co. Atty., W. F. Smith, Asst. Co. Atty., M. W. McKenzie, Mun. Counselor, and A. L. Hull, Asst. Mun. Counselor, for defendant in error.
SWINDALL, J.
¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county by plaintiff in error, as plaintiff below, against E. B. Bonaparte, county treasurer, Oklahoma county, Okla., as defendant.
¶2 The parties hold the same position in this court as they did in the trial court, and will be here referred to as plaintiff and defendant. The action was instituted on the 18th day of May, 1927, by the filing of a petition seeking to recover certain taxes paid by the plaintiff under protest, and which plaintiff claims are illegal. The defendant filed a demurrer to the petition, and while this demurrer was pending the second half of the taxes became due and payable, and by order of the court an amended and supplemental petition was duly filed covering the matters set forth in regard to the second half of the protested tax.
¶3 There are several causes of action in the petition, but the issues in this appeal are narrowed to the propositions stated in the four causes of action in the petition, and amended and supplemental petition, which, omitting the formal petition, is as follows:
"Plaintiff alleges that a levy of 17.69 mills was made upon the property of the plaintiff for the benefit of Oklahoma City. Okla., for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1926, and that of said levy 8.93 mills thereof was made to satisfy the sinking fund requirements....
"Plaintiff alleges that said levy is illegal, for the reason that there was included in the appropriations for sinking fund requirements for said taxing jurisdiction for said fiscal year the full amount of interest and the full amount of annual accrual on the following bonds,
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Woods v. Cole, Case Number: 25330
...Okla. 153, 300 P. 369; Aaronson v. Smiley, 142 Okla. 29, 285 P. 59; Protest of Murray, 140 Okla. 240, 285 P. 80; Perrine v. Bonaparte, 140 Okla. 165, 282 P. 332; St. L. & F. Ry. Co. v. Andrews, 137 Okla. 222, 278 P. 617; Pitts v. Allen, 138 Okla. 295, 281 P. 126. The rule announced in the f......
-
City of Tulsa v. Langley, Case Number: 30672
...system was acquired through general obligation bonds which are a direct burden upon the taxpayers of the City. See Perrine v. Bonaparte, 140 Okla. 165, 282 P. 332, 334. Debts created in excess of the annual income and revenue of the city, although payable solely from revenue of the waterwor......
-
Aaronson v. Smiley, Co., Case Number: 19697
...could not be, under the state of this record, any surplus. The rule announced by this court in cause No. 19094, Perrine v. Bonaparte, 140 Okla. 165, 282 P. 332 is a complete answer to the contention that the city is required to fix water rates at an amount sufficient to pay interest and 3 p......
-
C. D. Coggeshall & Co. v. Smiley, Co., Case Number: 20142
...on this cause of action. This cause of action is submitted by the plaintiff as being identical with that in Perrine v. Bonaparte, 140 Okla. 165, 282 P. 332. That case has been decided, and we apply the rule therein announced as decisive of this contention. ¶77 There was no error in sustaini......