Ramsey v. Leeper

• Decision Date: 12 December 1933
• Docket Number: Case Number: 20894
• Citation: 1933 OK 661,168 Okla. 43,31 P.2d 852
• Parties: RAMSEY v. LEEPER et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1933 OK 661

31 P.2d 852

168 Okla. 43

RAMSEY v. LEEPER et al.

Case Number: 20894

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: December 12, 1933

Syllabus

¶0 1. Municipal Corporations -- General Laws Prevail Over Charter Provision not Relating to Purely Municipal Matter.

The general laws of the state pertaining to any rightful subject of legislation govern over the provisions of a city charter adopted pursuant to section 3 (a) of article 18, Oklahoma State Constitution, unless the subject-matter of such charter provision relates to a purely municipal matter.

2. Same -- Eminent Domain -- Extramural Exercise of Power of Eminent Domain.

The right of a city to exercise the power of eminent domain beyond its corporate limits is not a purely municipal matter, and the provisions of the charter of a "home rule" city relating thereto are subordinate to the general laws of the state.

3. Same--Power of Legislature to Provide for Acquisition of Fee-Simple Title in Real Estate by Municipalities.

It is within the proper province of the Legislature to enact laws which will enable municipalities to acquire a fee-simple title in real estate by exercising the power of eminent domain.

4. Statutes -- Conflict -- Latest Enactment Prevails.

Where a conflict exists between statutes enacted at different sessions of the Legislature, the last statute in point of time will prevail, it being the last expression of the legislative intent.

5. Same -- Effect of Adoption of Revised Laws of 1910--Consideration of History of Conflicting Sections.

The adoption of the Revised Laws of 1910 was a re-enactment of the statutory provisions therein included, and for many purposes these provisions should be treated as simultaneous expressions of the legislative will; yet when different sections of such Revised Laws are in conflict and cannot be reasonably reconciled, the history of the conflicting sections may be investigated and considered for the purpose of determining which section should prevail.

6. Same -- Eminent Domain -- Later Enactment Held to Govern Title Acquired by City to Land Condemned.

The provisions of section 4507, C. O. S. 1921, first adopted by the Legislature in 1908, prevail over the conflicting provisions of section 4411, C. O. S. 1921, adopted in 1893.

7. Same -- Cities Empowered to Acquire Fee-Simple Title to Real Estate by Condemnation Proceeding.

By the provisions of section 4507, C. O. S. 1921, cities containing a population of more than 2,000 inhabitants may acquire, through the power of eminent domain, a fee-simple title in real estate.

8. Same--Title of Purchaser of Real Estate From City Dependent on Title Acquired by City at Time of Condemnation.

The title that may be acquired by an individual by purchase of real estate from the city, which real estate was previously condemned, depends upon the title acquired by the city at the time of condemnation.

9. Same--Oklahoma City Held Vested With Fee-Simple Title in Land Condemned for Water Works Purposes and Such Title Conveyed to City's Grantee.

Record examined, and held, that Oklahoma City was by previous condemnation proceedings vested with a fee-simple title in the land in controversy. Held, further, that the defendant (plaintiff in error herein) acquired fee-simple title from the city by purchase.

Appeal from District Court, Canadian County; Lucius Babcock, Judge.

Action by William J. Leeper and others against W. R. Ramsey to recover possession of real property and procure a partition thereof. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Allen & Jarman, for plaintiff in error.

A. G. Morrison & Sons, for defendants in error.

Eldon J. Dick, City Atty., E. M. Gallaher, Asst. City Atty., and Harve N. Langley, Special Counsel, amici curiae.

BUSBY, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from the district court of Canadian county. The defendants in error were plaintiffs in the court below, and the plaintiff in error was defendant therein. When not otherwise designated, the parties will be referred to as they appeared before the trial court.

¶2 Plaintiffs commenced this action on October 22, 1928, seeking to recover a five-elevenths undivided interest in a 30-acre tract of land situated in Canadian county, Okla., and to procure a partition thereof. Plaintiffs concede the defendant, W. R. Ramsey, to be the owner of the other six-elevenths interest. The defendant, Ramsey, however, asserts ownership of the entire tract.

¶3 The tract of land involved herein is a part of an 82.79 acre tract which was appropriated by Oklahoma City through condemnation proceedings instituted in the district court of Canadian county in 1917. The purpose of the condemnation was to procure the land to construct, erect, and maintain a waterworks system, together with all reservoirs, dams, conduits, machinery and equipment that might be necessary to supply water for Oklahoma City. This land had been the property of Hugh A. H. Leeper until his death in December of 1916. At the time of the condemnation proceedings above mentioned, the estate of Hugh A. H. Leeper was in the process of administration. The estate was not closed until the condemnation proceedings were completed. The plaintiffs are heirs at law and beneficiaries under the will of Hugh A. H. Leeper, being five of his eleven children, and as such each was entitled to a one-eleventh interest in his property subject to the payment of his just debts and funeral expenses and subject to a life estate in the property in question, which by the terms of the will was devised to his widow, Nancy Leeper, who departed this life during the process of the administration of the estate of Hugh A. H. Leeper.

¶4 The judgment in the condemnation proceedings recited that full value had been paid for the land in question and that a "fee simple" was conferred upon the condemnor. The money paid by the condemnor was received by John Leeper, as executor, and in the due course of administration it was properly distributed among the heirs and beneficiaries of the deceased.

¶5 It later developed that the exclusive use of the entire tract of land thus condemned was unnecessary for the purpose for which it was condemned, and the condemnor on April 25, 1928, pursuant to certain preliminary proceedings, executed a deed to the 30 acres in question to the defendant, W. R. Ramsey. Restrictive provisions were incorporated in the deed prohibiting the use of the property for general mercantile purposes and preventing the erection of more than one residence on any tract of less than five acres. The obvious purpose of such restrictive provisions being to prevent or minimize pollution and contamination of the water supply reservoir located in close proximity to the property.

¶6 No question is raised in connection with the manner in which the city disposed of the property. The question in this case is whether or not the city had acquired such an interest in, or title to the land as would enable it to voluntarily alienate the same to a private individual. The defendant in this case has procured quit-claim deeds from six of the eleven devisees and heirs of Hugh A. H. Leeper, thereby narrowing this controversy to the remaining 5/11th interest.

¶7 It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the city of Oklahoma City, the condemnor acquired only a right in the nature of an easement to use the land in question for the purposes for which it was condemned. That its right to enjoy this easement was contingent upon the continued use of the land for such purpose. That the sale or attempted sale of the land to the defendant constituted an abandonment of this use and that the right to possession of the land thereupon reverted to the heirs at law and devisees of Hugh A. H. Leeper, who, plaintiffs say, were at all times the owners of the fee-simple title, subject only to this easement which ceased on abandonment.

¶8 The defendant, on the other hand, asserts that Oklahoma City obtained a fee-simple title to the land in controversy, and that the deed executed to him by the city operated to transfer the same character of title to him, subject to the restrictions incorporated in the deed.

¶9 On the trial of this cause a jury was waived and the issues submitted to the court. Request was made for separate conclusions of law and fact, and in accordance with this request findings of fact and conclusions of law appear in the record. We quote the conclusions of law which in the main correspond to the theory of the plaintiffs:

"1. That by the condemnation proceedings hereinabove referred to the city of Oklahoma City acquired only an easement or the right to use the said tract of land for waterworks and did not acquire a fee-simple title.

"2. That the fee-simple title to the said tract of land, subject to the use of the city of Oklahoma City for waterworks purposes, was never divested from these plaintiffs and other heirs at law of Hugh A. H. Leeper, deceased.

"3. That upon the abandonment of the tract of land by the city of Oklahoma City for the use for which it was condemned, the right to possession of the said land reverted to the heirs at law of Hugh A. H. Leeper, deceased.

"4. That plaintiffs are not estopped from asserting their rights in and to said tract of land by their appearance in the proceedings of the district court had on the 4th day of May, 1917, nor by their acceptance of their proportionate part of the estate of Hugh A. H. Leeper, deceased, which included the condemnation money."

¶10 The defendant especially requested that in addition to the foregoing conclusion the trial court determine as a matter of law whether the statutes of the state of Oklahoma or the charter provision of Oklahoma City should govern in determining the right of the city to exercise the power of eminent domain. The trial court declined to determine this precise question, but concluded as a matter of law that the determination thereof was immaterial for the reason that neither the charter provisions nor the statutes of the state of Oklahoma...