Seba v. Independent School Dist. No. 3 of Dewey County
| Decision Date | 10 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 34869,34869 |
| Citation | 208 Okla. 83,253 P.2d 559 |
| Parties | SEBA et al. v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 OF DEWEY COUNTY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In a condemnation action where the answer of the landowner pleads allegations amounting to an affirmative defense, and upon trial the defendant either assumes the burden of proof or proceeds thereon without objection, and the whole matter is tried and determined, no reversible error can be predicated on the question of who in law had the burden of proof.
2. In condemnation cases, while the particular property sought to be condemned must be necessary for the proposed project, the condemnor's decision as to the necessity for taking the particular property will not be disturbed in the absence of fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion, and where it is clearly apparent that there has been no abuse of discretion by the school board in selecting a site for a school gymnasium, and there is no evidence that a greater amount of land was taken than was necessary, a demurrer by the plaintiff to the evidence of the defendants offered in support of their objections to taking the property, will be sustained.
3. In a condemnation proceeding by a school board authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain, the owner of the land sought to be condemned may not inquired into the source of money to pay therefor.
Wise & Ivester, Sayre, Ruble & Ruble, Taloga, for plaintiffs in error.
E. S. Collier, Taloga, for defendant in error.
The parties occupy reverse positions on appeal from their positions in the trial court and will be referred to as they appeared there.
The plaintiff had voted bonds in the amount of $60,000 with which to pay for the construction of a gymnasium building in the school district. The school was located on Block 29 in the Town of Leedey, and the defendants owned all of Block 28, which was immediately north of Block 29. The school district owned other tracts of land in the town, but the property of defendants was on the main residential thoroughfare and directly across the street from the school building, and offered advantages for a location for the gymnasium in the way of easy access by automobiles and pedestrians. The school board attempted to purchase from the defendants a portion of Block 28, but the defendants refused to sell, and the school board thereupon commenced this action for condemnation.
Appraisers were duly appointed and the proper procedure had for the condemnation of a certain tract of land in the south half of Block 28. The appraisers made the appraisement, fixing the value of the property at $2,750, and this amount was paid into court and the property was taken over by the school district and a gymnasium constructed. The defendants filed no application for a jury trial, but they did file objections to taking the property, charging that the property was being taken for arbitrary and spiteful reasons and that the school board did not have the funds with which to purchase the property but had to borrow it on the members' own personal note from the First National Bank of Leedey, and that the plaintiff had other property on which the gymnasium could have been erected.
A trial was had on the objections filed by defendants. The defendants assumed the burden of proof--whether by order of the court or by their own volition does not appear in the record. However, it was said in the journal entry of judgment that the burden of proof was placed upon the defendants by the trial court. In view of the facts in this case, we do not consider that it was error for the trial court if it did, to require defendants to assume the burden. The school board was acquiring a site for a gymnasium which would be an important part of the school program and which would be close to the main school building. This was a place where basketball games and public meetings would be held, and for that reason its accessibility, both to the public and to the students, was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke v. Oklahoma City
...exercise thereof. See also Arthur v. Board of Com'rs of Choctaw County, 43 Okl. 174, 141 P. 1; Seba v. Independent School District No. 3 of Dewey County, 208 Okl. 83, 253 P.2d 559; Bilby v. District Court of Ninth Judicial District, 159 Okl. 268, 15 P.2d Our Legislature has provided that an......
-
McCrady v. Western Farmers Elec. Co-op.
...is legislative in character and conclusive in the absence of fraud, bad faith, or an abuse of discretion, (Seba v. Independent School Dist. No. 3, 208 Okl. 83, 253 P.2d 559, Arthur v. Board of Com'rs of Choctaw County, 43 Okl. 174, 141 P. 1) a simple allegation of such necessity should be s......
-
Oklahoma City v. Cooper
...it should or should not condemn the 24.61 acre tract if it did not condemn the 'Stevens Tract'. In Seba v. Independent School Dist. No. 3 of Deway County, 208 Okl. 83, 253 P.2d 559, we said that the ordinary rule in condemnation cases is that while the particular property sought to be conde......
-
Lough v. Town of Mulhall
...and its decision will not be disturbed in the absence of fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion. In Seba v. Independent School Dist. No. 3, 208 Okl. 83, 253 P.2d 559, this court '* * * The ordinary rule in condemnation cases is that while the particular property sought to be condemned mus......