Watkins v. Bd. of Com'rs of Stephens County

13 Citing cases

  1. Barker v. St. Louis County

    340 Mo. 986 (Mo. 1937)   Cited 74 times
    Finding that a state statute was invalid to the extent that it permitted private property to be taken for public use in a period shorter than that required to adversely possess the property

    (1) The statute (Sec. 7840, R.S. 1929), under which the condemnation proceedings were had by and in the county court of St. Louis county, and said proceedings are invalid and void because they conflict with the provisions of Section 21, Article II, of the Missouri Constitution. Louisiana F.P. Road Co. v. Pickett, 25 Mo. 539; Chicago, F.S. C. Railroad Co. v. McGrew, 104 Mo. 290, 15 S.W. 931; Sedalia v. Railroad Co., 17 Mo. App. 109; Tremayne v. St. Louis, 320 Mo. 120, 6 S.W.2d 935; McGrew v. Paving Co., 247 Mo. 549, 155 S.W. 411; Householder v. Kansas City, 83 Mo. 488; Greenwell v. Wills Sons, 210 Mo. App. 651, 239 S.W. 578; Redman v. Railroad, 33 N.J. Eq. 165; Kime v. Cass County, 71 Neb. 677, 101 N.W. 2; Carrico v. Calvin, 92 Ky. 342, 17 S.W. 854; Bushart v. Fulton County, 183 Ky. 471, 209 S.W. 499; Watkins v. Board of Commissioners, 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 525; St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 485, 41 S.W. 1094, 46 S.W. 976, quoting from People ex rel. v. Allen, 42 N.Y. 384; Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 302, 53 S.W. 907; Watkins v. Board of Comrs., 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 525; Johnstone v. Ry. Co., 245 Mich. 65, 222 N.W. 325, 67 A.L.R. 383; Kennet, etc., Railroad Co. v. Senter, 83 Mo. App. 184. Payment is condition precedent to obtaining title; State ex rel. v. Lubke, 15 Mo. App. 152; Kennedy v. Indianapolis, 103 U.S. 599, 26 L.Ed. 550; United States v. Railroad Co., 176 F. 969; Poulan v. Railroad Co., 123 Ga. 605, 51 S.E. 657; Athens Terminal Co. v. Athens Fdy. Mach. Works, 129 Ga. 393, 58 S.E. 891; Big Lost River Irr. Co. v. Davidson, 21 Idaho, 160, 121 P. 88; Chicago, K. W. Railroad Co. v. Watkins, 43 Kan. 50, 22 P. 985; St. Joseph D.C. Railroad Co. v. Callender, 13 Kan. 496; Williams v. Wedding, 165 Ky. 361, 176 S.W. 1176; Bushart v. Fulton County, 183 Ky. 471, 209 S.W. 499; Great Northern Railroad Co. v. Benjamin, 51 Mont. 167, 149 P. 968; Mar

  2. Morse v. Board of Com'rs of Marshall County

    169 Okla. 600 (Okla. 1934)   Cited 10 times
    In Morse v. Board of County Commissioners of Marshall County, 169 Okla. 600, 38 P.2d 945, we held that a mortgagee of property sought to be condemned was an "owner" or "person interested in property," and as such was entitled to compensation from the condemning party.

    (Emphasis ours.) Watkins et al. v. Board of County Commissioners of Stephens County et al., 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 523. Justice Phelps, in the case of the Board of County Commissioners of Rogers County v. Baxter et al., 113 Okla. 280, 241 P. 752, has very well said:

  3. City of Tahlequah v. Lake Region Elec

    2002 OK 2 (Okla. 2002)   Cited 21 times
    Observing that the authors of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discontinued the use of the term "cause of action" in favor of new term "claim" "[b]ecause the substantive legal meaning of this troublesome phrase . . . came to be enveloped in controversy"

    Koffler Reppy, supra note 3 at 85. Watkins v. Board of Com'rs, 1918 OK 445, 174 P. 523, 524-25; Koch et al. v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 1953 OK 148, ยถ 18, 257 P.2d 790, 794; Public Service Co. v. B. Willis, C.P.A., 1997 OK 78, ยถ 11, 941 P.2d 995, 999. ยถ 4 Special proceedings no longer form a separate litigation class in Oklahoma.

  4. Allen v. Transok Pipe Line Company

    1976 OK 53 (Okla. 1976)   Cited 22 times

    Before an entity having eminent domain authority can appropriate private land to its use, all of the steps legally requisite to using the land must have been taken. See Watkins v. Board of Commissioners of Stephens County, 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 523 (1918), where the Court said at page 525: "Before, however, the board of county commissioners acting for the county can exercise the right to appropriate private land for any purpose, all of the steps legally prerequisite to using the land for such purpose must have been taken.

  5. City of Bartlesville v. Ambler

    1971 OK 154 (Okla. 1972)   Cited 10 times
    In City of Bartlesville v. Ambler, 499 P.2d 433 (Okla. 1972) this court, relying on Langston City, held where neither the word "donated" nor "granted" was used, the city did not acquire a fee simple title to properties designated on the plat as drainage easements.

    The Court held that the right to condemn must be established as a prerequisite to the right of possession. 203 Okla. at 309, 220 P.2d at 695. Moreover, in Watkins v. Board of Commissioners of Stephens County, 70 Okla. 305, 309, 174 P. 523, 525 (1918), the Court specifically held that an injunction was a proper remedy to prevent the appropriation of private property for a county road without complying with constitutional and statutory provisions prescribing the procedure to be used in acquiring the property. According to Wybrant and Watkins, a public body having the power of condemnation can be enjoined from appropriating private property for public use until it has initiated condemnation proceedings and had its right to condemn the property finally determined.

  6. CAPPS v. WHITEGRASS-WATERHOLE FLOOD CONTROL, ETC

    359 P.2d 318 (Okla. 1961)   Cited 2 times

    We think this contention, as a general rule, under a statute like our own, is correct. * * *" For authority touching upon the proposition that it is incumbent upon a person wishing to acquire property for a public purpose, to attempt to purchase the property before instituting condemnation proceedings, see Watkins et al. v. Board of Com'rs of Stephens County et al., 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 523; Delfield v. City of Tulsa et al., 191 Okla. 541, 131 P.2d 754, 143 A.L.R. 1032; 18 Am.Jur. "Eminent Domain", Sec. 319, p. 962, and 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain ยง 224, p. 1163. The statute (69 O.S. 1951 ยง 658[ 69-658]) last referred to in the foregoing quotation relates solely to the exercise of the power of condemnation by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. It is stated in part in said section that "whenever a reasonable price cannot be agreed upon, * * * the Authority is hereby authorized and empowered to acquire (property), by the exercise of the power of condemnation."

  7. Gibbs v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority

    1955 OK 178 (Okla. 1955)   Cited 3 times

    Any attempt to condemn private property for public use without notice to the landowner, in violation of constitutional requirements, is void even though done under color of statutory authority. Const. Art. 2, Section 24; Watkins v. Board of Com'rs of Stephens County, 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 523. Where the condemning authority fails to join the owner the condemner does not acquire any interest adverse to the owner. The proceedings are invalid as to such party and his interest in the property is not divested.

  8. Koch v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority

    1953 OK 148 (Okla. 1953)   Cited 18 times
    In Koch v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, 208 Okl. 556, 257 P.2d 790 (1953), the Court, in reconciling the provisions for service of process under 66 O.S. 53 [ 66-53] (1971) (the condemnation statute used by the Turnpike Authority) with the general statute on service of process in Title 12, held that the condemnation statute was a special statute governing acquisition of land. Its terms should control because it dealt with the specific matter of condemnation and such special statute should prevail over the general statute.

    The authorities so hold. 18 Am.Jur., Eminent Domain, ยง 319; Watkins v. Board of County Com'rs of Stephens County, 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 523; State ex rel. Bremerton Bridge Co. v. Superior Court for Kitsap County, 194 Wn. 7, 76 P.2d 990, and authorities therein cited. This rule, however, has its exceptions.

  9. Town of Ames v. Wybrant

    203 Okla. 307 (Okla. 1950)   Cited 24 times
    In Ames, on the day the commissioners were appointed, but before the appointment was made, each of the landowners filed, and presented to court, a motion to dismiss the condemnation petition, alleging the lack of necessity of the taking.

    A similar situation obtains when an existing power to condemn is sought to be exercised without compliance with constitutional requirements. Watkins et al. v. Board of Com'rs of Stephens County et al., 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 523. Therefore the establishment of the right to condemn is a prerequisite to any right of possession by the condemnor.

  10. Wilkerson v. Grand River Dam Authority

    195 Okla. 678 (Okla. 1945)   Cited 14 times
    In Wilkerson v. Grand River Dam Authority, 195 Okla. 678, 161 P.2d 745, we held that where defendant landowner assumed the burden of proof in the trial court, he could not complain of the court's instruction that the burden was upon him to make out his case by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

    The complaint of defendant that the court erred in refusing to give requested instruction No. 12 is wholly lacking in merit. The requested instruction was, in substance, a quotation of the 5th paragraph of the syllabus of Watkins v. Board of County Commissioners, 70 Okla. 305, 174 P. 523, and while correct as an abstract proposition of law, had no application to the issue which the jury was called upon to determine. Defendant complains that instruction No. 3 as given by the court was erroneous in that it advised the jury to disregard and not consider any increase "or decrease" in the market value of the lands due to the construction or proposed construction of the Grand River Dam Project.