Court Opinion

ID: 9623965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:47:31.18025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:17.292494
License: Public Domain

O’NEAL, J.
(dissenting). I am unable to concur in majority opinion. In this case the town of Ames and other individuals seek a writ of prohibition against O. C. Wybrant, judge of the district court of Major county, and the city of Enid, prohibiting further proceedings in four condemnation cases pending in the district court of Major county. The matter is pending here on application to the court to assume original jurisdiction. Defendants have filed their response to said application and the matter is before this court.
The proceedings in condemnation are actions Nos. 6011, 6013, 6014, and 6018, on the docket of said district court. The city of Enid is plaintiff in all of said actions and therein seeks to obtain or take through condemnation certain “ground water” (as defined in Title 82, S.L. 1949, chap 11, page 641, et seq.) in lands therein described.
In pursuance of the prayer in the several petitions the judge of the district court appointed commissioners to view and appraise the premises (property). On the day of the appointment, and before same was made, the defendants in each of said actions appeared before the judge of the district court and filed and presented a motion to dismiss the petition of plaintiff for divers reasons all challenging the right of plaintiff to condemn the interest or rights involved (ground water). On presentation of said motions the judge declined to pass upon the same and passed consideration thereof until after the commissioners to be appointed shall have filed their response. Such was the fact situation when this application was filed.
It must be conceded that the right or power of the city of Enid to condemn the interest described in the petition is a judicial question and when such right is challenged the question must be judicially determined before any decree of condemnation may be entered.
“Prior to the assessment of damages the court will determine all preliminary questions as to the right of the petitioner to maintain the proceedings. The statutes sometimes specifically provide for such preliminary hearing. Even in the absence of any specific provisions it is frequently held that it is the policy of the law to have all preliminary questions as to the right to take settled in one suit, and the court may adopt any of the usual modes of determining such questions.” 18 Am. Jur., Eminent Domain, §332, p. 975.
In Wrightsman v. Southwestern Natural Gas Co., 173 Okla. 75, 46 P. 2d 925, it is stated:
“ . . . In such cases denial of a tribunal in which to test the right to condemn prior to possession would be a denial of equal protection of the laws.”
The principal question is when, or at what stage of the proceedings, the question of right of condemnation may be judicially determined. In the Wrightsman case, supra, it is said:
*311“Logical and orderly procedure demands that such questions be considered and determined first. But at what stage of the procedure? The gravity and importance of the questions that may arise would seem to call for their final determination by the court rather than the district judge as distinguished from the court. We so hold. If follows, then, that the final determination of such questions should be made after the matter is brought before the court proper by objection to the report of commissioners.”
It was also pointed out in that case that section 11931, O. S. 1931 (66 O. S. 1941 §52) provides for the appointment of commissioners by the district judge (not the district court). It is further said:
“By the provisions of the statute above quoted the earliest time at which any question may be presented to the court proper as distinguished from the judge thereof is upon objections filed by either party to the report of the commissioners or upon a written demand for jury trial.”
With the latter part of the opinion of the Wrightsman case, supra, I am inclined to disagree. I think the question of the right of power of the condemnor to condemn the particular property, or class of property, may be presented to the court proper, as distinguished from the judge thereof, and may be presented at once upon service of the notice, and it may be presented by demurrer to the petition, or by motion to dismiss in the nature of a demurrer. However, this court has, in at least three cases, other than the Wrightsman case, supra, held or adhered to the rule that where a petition in condemnation called for the appointment of commissioners to view the premises and assess the damages reasonably conforms to the provision of the Constitution and statutes, no issue was presented calling for judicial determination, and the function of the district judge in appointing commissioners is merely ministerial. French v. Ayres, 201 Okla. 494, 207 P. 2d 308; Incorporated Town of Pittsburg v. Cochrane, 200 Okla. 497, 197 P. 2d 287; State ex rel. Dabney, Attorney General, v. Johnson, District Judge, 122 Okla. 241, 254 P. 61.
In this case I think this court should assume original jurisdiction and determine once and for all whether a city or town has the right or power to condemn and appropriate “ground water” as defined in Title 82, S. L. 1949, page 641, et seq. The authority therefor is State ex rel. Dabney, Attorney General, v. Johnson, District Judge, supra. That was a case involving substantially the same question, where the State Highway Commission sought to condemn real property for highway purposes. Petition was filed and application was made to the district judge for the appointment of appraisers. Defendants were served with notice, as in this case, and filed their motion to dismiss. In that case the motion was sustained and the petition was dismissed. The order being as follows:
“ ‘And the court being well and sufficiently advised in the premises, is of the opinion that the State of Oklahoma is without power to maintain an action to condemn lands for use as a county highway, and that said motion should, therefore, be sustained.’ ”
Thereupon the Attorney General filed an original action in this court against Hal Johnson, the district judge, praying for a peremptory writ of mandamus. This court assumed original jurisdiction and upon full consideration of the issues this court said:
“We reach the conclusion, therefore, that where the petition calling for the appointment of commissioners reasonably conforms to the provisions of the Constitution and statutes, as it clearly did in this case, no issue is presented calling for a judicial determination and the functions of the court are merely ministerial.”
Therein this court not only held that the writ should issue commanding the district judge to appoint the appraisers, but, after quoting and citing several sections of the statute, stated:
*312“The petition praying for the appointment of commissioners recites that the road in question is being constructed ‘by aid of federal and state funds,’ which, under the above quoted section of the statute, clearly gives the State Highway Commission jurisdiction over and supervision of the construction of the road in question even though it be a county road.”
This court did not, in that case, wait until commissioners filed their report and until defendants had presented objections thereto, but determined the right of the State Highway Commission to condemn the property involved. From the time this court decided that case the parties all knew their rights and could proceed accordingly. So, in this case, if this court should do as it did in the Johnson case, supra, not only assume original jurisdiction and determine the right to have appraisers appointed, but also determine the right of the city of Enid to condemn the property, the parties would at once know their rights and might proceed accordingly.
Such are my views as to what should be done in this case.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent.