Scott v. Town of Noble
| Decision Date | 15 February 1907 |
| Citation | 18 Okla. 409,89 P. 1122,1907 OK 55 |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. SCOTT, v. THE TOWN OF NOBLE. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 VACATING PLAT--Rights of Land Owners. The statutes of this territory do not authorize one owner of a small portion of the plat of an incorporated town to have such part of the plat vacated upon his individual petition to the district court, there being other owners of lots in the plat not parties to the proceeding.
Error from the District Court of Cleveland County; before Clinton F. Irwin, Trial Judge.
John Franing and C. L. Botsford, for plaintiff in error.
Newell & Jackson, for defendant in error.
¶1 The plaintiff in error, Scott, brought an action in the district court of Cleveland county against the town of Noble, to have a portion of the townsite of Noble vacated. He alleged that he was the owner of certain lots and blocks in a portion of the recorded plats of the town of Noble, and that he had been in possession of the portion of the town embracing said lots and had the same fenced and occupied it as a home for his family for fourteen years. That there were no opened streets or alleys through his tract of land, and that there was no public necessity for the same. The court sustained a demurrer to the petition and rendered judgment dismissing the cause at plaintiff's costs. He appeals from that judgment.
¶2 The question presented is whether the statute of this territory makes any provision for the vacation of a part of a townsite by the owner of the part sought to be vacated. The statute, sections 95 to 99 inclusive, article 3, chap. 13, Wilson's statutes, embraces all the law on the subject. By the provisions of sec. 95, the district courts are given jurisdiction to vacate towns under certain condition. Sec. 95 authorizes the proprietor or proprietors of a town to have the plat or any part thereof vacated by bringing their proceedings in the district court, giving the required notice and making proper proof. This section does not give an individual owner of a part of a plat this right. The application must be made by the proprietor of a townsite, if one person owns it all, and if there is more than one proprietor, then all such proprietors must join in the petition, and they may have the whole town plat vacated, or they may have a portion only vacated. Section 98 authorizes the owners of a platted townsite, platted addition to a town or a subdivision of a plat, where no lots have been sold, to vacate the same by a writing executed in the manner provided by law. If any lots embraced in the plat have been sold, then the owners of the townsite or addition and all the owners of lots, by joining in the execution of a writing, may vacate such town, addition or subdivision. Section 99 is as follows:
"Any part of a plat may be vacated under the provisions and subject to the conditions of this chapter: Provided, such vacating does not abridge or destroy any of the rights and privileges of other proprietors in said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williamson v. Needles
...and existed as a barrier to the replatting of the same tract of land as Crestwood addition. In this connection they cite Scott v. Noble, 18 Okla. 409, 89 P. 1122, and Clark v. Rain, 51 Okla. 206, 151 P. 692, which announce the rule that platted subdivisions or additions to cities may be vac......
-
Town of Burlington v. Lambert
... ... Scott v. Town of Noble, 18 Okla. 409, 89 P. 1122, and Clark v. Rain, 51 Okla. 206, 151 P. 692, are decisive of the instant case. Sections 95 to 99, ... ...
-
Clark v. Rain
...vacated, and this was not done, the proceedings attempting to vacate a portion of said plat were void. It was said in Scott v. Town of Noble, 18 Okla. 409, 89 P. 1122: "Hence it must be held that the only method prescribed by this chapter for vacating a part of a plat is under section 96, b......
- Scott v. Town of Noble