Court Opinion

ID: 9545652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:16:47.018821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:17.985137
License: Public Domain

GIBSON, J.
(concurring). I am of the opinion that jurisdiction was not conferred upon this court by the Act because the situation is not one in which the Legislature has the power to grant the jurisdiction. El Reno Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Taylor, Co. Treas., 87 Okla. 140, 209 P. 749.
Furthermore, even if the Legislature could grant such jurisdiction it could not do so to the exclusion of the jurisdiction existing in the district court under constitutional grant, 15 C. J. 1130, §576 et seq.; State v. Jones, 15 Ariz. 215, 137 P. 544, and therefore the jurisdiction would be concurrent only.
Also, the approval of the bonds necessarily involves a determination of issues concerning the formation of the district, etc., which involve the matter of due process (Myles Salt Co. Ltd., v. Board of Commissioners of the Iberia & St. Mary Drainage District et al., 239 U. S. 478, 485, 60 L. Ed. 392, 396, L. R. A. 1918E, 190, 36 S. Ct. 204). I do not think there was due process.
That there are issues herein involving the integrity of the district as enlarged, as well as other matters, which must be disposed of before the bond issue can be approved, appears upon the face of the proceedings herein. There can be no sufficient reason why this court, even if we have jurisdiction, should entertain jurisdiction to the exclusion of the district court where the trial of such issues properly belongs under the policy of the law.