Smith v. City of Osceola
Decision Date | 27 October 1916 |
Docket Number | 29786 |
Citation | 159 N.W. 648,178 Iowa 200 |
Parties | R. R. SMITH, Appellant, v. CITY OF OSCEOLA et al., Appellees |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clarke District Court.--H. K. EVANS, Judge.
ACTION in equity, to set aside and hold for naught a certain ordinance granted by the city of Osceola to the other defendants, to maintain a telephone system within the city of Osceola, and to use the streets, as far as necessary, to effectuate that purpose. Opinion states the facts. Decree for the defendant in the court below. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Parker Parrish & Miller, J. H. Jamison, for appellant.
O. M Slaymaker, for appellees.
This is an action in equity, brought by the plaintiff, a citizen and taxpayer of the city of Osceola, Clarke County, to restrain the defendants from using the streets, alleys and public places of the city for the purpose of constructing and maintaining thereon poles, wires and other apparatus for the purpose of carrying on a telephone business.
On the 4th day of March, 1913, the city council of defendant city passed the following ordinance:
That thereafter, the city council, acting under the authority contained in Sections 775 and 776, Code, 1897, submitted said ordinance to a vote of the qualified electors of the city of Osceola at a special election, and a majority of the voters voting at said election voted in favor thereof.
The plaintiff is a taxpayer and citizen of said city, and, as such, challenges the legality of this ordinance. Defendant city is a city of the second class, organized under the general laws of the state.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the ordinance is void, for the reason that the legislature of the state has never conferred upon the city the power to grant the rights attempted to be conferred by the ordinance; that the power of the city is limited, under Section 776, to the authorization of the use of the streets, alleys and other public places for telephone purposes, only by ordinance of a general and uniform application, which applies to any person, firm or corporation that desires to use the streets and alleys for that purpose; that it has no authority, under the statute, to pass an ordinance granting to an individual or person or corporation, the right to occupy its streets for telephone purposes; that the ordinance must be of a general nature, so that all who desire to enter the city and engage in the business may do so, under the ordinance.
The contention of the plaintiff was challenged by demurrer. The demurrer was sustained, and, the plaintiff electing to stand upon his petition, the court entered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. From this, the plaintiff appeals.
To a proper understanding of the contention, it is well to have before us the statutes which we are called upon to construe.
Section 2158, Code, 1897, provides:
"Any person or firm, and any corporation organized for such purpose, within or without the state, may construct a telegraph or telephone line along the public roads of the state."
Section 775 of the same Code provides:
"Cities and towns shall have the power to authorize and regulate . . ., telephone. . . . and other electric wires, and the poles and other supports thereof, by general and uniform regulation, and to provide the manner in which, and places where, the same shall be placed upon, along or under the streets . . . of such city or town, and may divide the city into districts for that purpose."
Section 776 provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex inf. McKittrick ex rel. City of California v. Missouri Utilities Co.
...Co. v. Illinois, 96 U.S. 63; Owensborough v. Cumberland Tel. Co., 230 U.S. 58; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Ingraham, 228 F. 392; Smith v. Osceola, 178 Iowa 200; Grand Bridge Co. v. Prange, 35 Mich. 400; State v. Northern Ohio Traction Co., 34 Ohio Cir. Ct. 262. (b) The Public Service Commissio......
-
State ex inf. Shartel, ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Missouri Utilities Co.
... ... v ... Detroit, 229 U.S. 39; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v ... Ingraham, 228 F. 392; People v. Lawley, 17 ... Cal.App. 331, 119 P. 1089; Smith v. Osceola, 178 ... Iowa 200, 159 N.W. 648; Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. Cedar ... Rapids, 118 Iowa 234; Grand Rapids Bridge Co. v ... Prange, ... ...
- In re Estate of Rule
- Smith v. City of Osceola