State ex rel. City of Pauls Valley v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 17 January 1950
• Docket Number: No. 34326,34326
• Citation: 202 Okla. 338,213 P.2d 852
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CITY OF PAULS VALLEY v. WILLIAMSON, Atty. Gen. & Ex-Officio Bond Commissioner of State.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 852

213 P.2d 852

202 Okla. 338

STATE ex rel. CITY OF PAULS VALLEY v.WILLIAMSON, Atty. Gen. & Ex-Officio BondCommissioner of State.

No. 34326.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 17, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court.

In providing improvements of a general nature within the purview of 11 O.S.1941, § 645, where such improvements are not specifically provided for in Sec. 27, Art. 10 of the Constitution, a city council may rely upon said statute as authority for proceedings leading to the issuance of bonds to pay for said improvements when the proposition submitted to the voters of the city under the statute is assented to by three-fifths of the voters participating in the election as required by Art. 10, Sec. 26 of the Constitution, who possess the qualifications prescribed by Art. 3, Sections 1and4a of the Constitution.

S. H. King, City Attorney, of Pauls Valley, for plaintiff.

Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mainard Kennerly, Asst. Attorney General, for defendant.

ARNOLD, Vice Chief Justice.

Original proceeding by the city of Pauls Valley, a municipal corporation, against Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General and ex officio bond commissioner of the State of Oklahoma for a writ of mandamus to compel the approval of an issue of bonds by said city in the sum of $27,700.00 the proceeds of which are to pay for the construction of a bridge and approaches within said city.This project is a general improvement not within the provisions of Article 10, Sec. 27, Const., but is a part of the permanent improvement of West Paul Avenue and North Jones Avenue in said city and connecting the same so as to afford a continuous route of travel over and across Rush Creek.This does not constitute a public utility.See: Dingman v. City of Sapulpa, 27 Okl. 116, 111 P. 319;Hooper v. State, 26 Okl. 646, 110 P. 912;Coleman v. Frame, 26 Okl. 193, 109 P. 928, 31 L.R.A.,N.S., 556;State ex rel. City of Shawnee v. Williamson, 186 Okl. 278, 97 P.2d 74, 125 A.L.R. 1389;State ex rel. City of Ada v. Williamson, Okl.Sup., 207 P.2d 922.

By a written stipulation of the parties the proceedings leading to the issuance of these bonds were shown to be in all respects regular and in conformity to law, the only reason of the bond commissioner for declining to approve the same is that less than three-fifths of the qualified taxpaying voters voting at the election voted for the issuance of said bonds.

It appears from the stipulation of the parties that when the proposition of issuing said bonds was submitted to the voters of the city two forms of ballots were provided, one on white paper to be used by the qualified taxpaying voters and the other on yellow paper to be used by qualified nontaxpaying voters; that less than three-fifths but more than 50 percent of the qualified taxpaying voters voting at said election cast their ballots in favor of the issuance of said bonds but that a combination of the two classes of voters voting in favor of the issuance of the bonds showed more than three-fifths in favor thereof.

There is very little difference in the position of plaintiff and defendant in the briefs filed by them, both citing and quoting from some of the same decisions by this court involving the construction and application of Sec. 26, Art. 10, Const., and certain statutes of the Territory of Oklahoma extended to and continued in force in the state by Sec. 2 of the schedule to the Constitution where applicable and not repugnant to the organic law.Plaintiff states its contention in the following proposition:

'Title 11 O.S.1941, Section 645, insofar as the term 'qualified taxpaying voters' used in said section, has been abrogated or nullified by Article 10, Section 26, of the Constitution and said term is in conflict with and in violation of said constitutional provision.'

Defendant's response to this proposition is in the form of a question, as follows:

'Did the adoption of Sec. 26, Art. X of the Oklahoma Constitution supersede and render inoperative that provision of 11 O.S.1941 § 645 which requires the approval of 'three-fifths of the qualified property taxpaying voters' voting at an election for the issuance of bonds for making improvements of a general nature, in order for a city to issue bonds thereunder; or, may a city issue bonds for said purpose if the proposition receives the approval of 'three-fifths of the voters thereof, voting at an election to be held for that purpose', as provided by Sec. 26, supra?'

In North et al. v. McMahan, 26 Okl. 502, 110 P. 1115, this court considered what is now 19 O.S.1941 § 734, authorizing the purchase or erection of courthouses by county commissioners and which provided that the issuance of said bonds should be first submitted to the people for their approval and that 'a majority of the qualified property tax-paying voters voting at any general election, or special election called by the board of county commissioners for the purpose shall have declared by their votes in favor of issuing such bonds'.The first paragraph of the syllabus to that case, so far as material here, reads:

'* * * said act, in so far as the same provides that said bonds shall not be issued until a 'majority' of the qualified electors voting at said election shall have declared by their votes in favor of issuing such bonds, is repugnant to said article 10, § 26, in so far as it provides that said bonds shall not issue without the assent of 'three-fifths' of said voters, and to that extent said act must fall.'

Another decision by ...