Annotate this Case

1934 OK 94
30 P.2d 169
167 Okla. 457
Case Number: 22244
Decided: 02/20/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma



¶0 1. Municipal Corporations--Police Power--Permits not Exempt From Operation of Subsequent Ordinances and Regulations.
The police power of a municipal corporation being a continuing one, a permit does not exempt applicant from the operation of subsequent ordinances and regulations legally enacted by the corporation in the exercise of its police powers.
2. Same--Constitutional Law--Power to Regulate Lawful Occupations in Public Interest.
While the right to engage in a lawful and useful occupation cannot be taken away under the guise of regulation, such occupation may be subjected to regulation in the public interest, even though the exercise of power to regulate involves in some degree a limitation upon the exercise of the right regulated.
3. Same--Manner and Extent of Regulation of Occupations Primarily for Legislative Determination--Scope of Judicial Inquiry.
The manner and extent of the regulation of occupations for the public interest are matters primarily for legislative determination, with which the courts cannot interfere unless it clearly appears that a statute enacted ostensibly for the purpose of regulation imposes an arbitrary and unreasonable burden upon the pursuit of the occupation.
4. Same--Where Debatable Whether Ordinance Arbitrary or Unreasonable, Validity Favored.
If there is room for fair debate as to whether a municipal ordinance is arbitrary or unreasonable, the court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the legislative body charged with the primary duty and responsibility of determining the question.
5. Same--Oil and Gas--Ordinance Requiring $ 200,000 Surety Bond to Cover Resulting Damages as Condition to Right to Drill Wells Within City Limits Held Valid.
A municipal ordinance making the filing of a surety company bond in the sum of $ 200,000 for the payment of any resulting damages to person or property a condition of the right to drill a gas or oil well within the city limits, held to be valid.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; T. G. Chambers, Judge.

Injunction by the City of Oklahoma City against the Hud Oil & Refining Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Twyford & Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Harlan T. Deupree, Municipal Counselor, for defendant in error.


¶1 The only issue presented on appeal in this cause which was presented in the trial court, which granted an injunction, was determined by this court in cause numbered 21722, C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Oklahoma City, this day decided, 167 Okla. 384, 29 P.2d 952. The rule therein stated is applied herein. Therein we applied the rule stated by this court in Gant et al. v. Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 86, 6 P.2d 1065, and Gant et al. v. Oklahoma City et al., 160 Okla. 62, 15 P.2d 833, and by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gant et al. v. Oklahoma City et al., 289 U.S. 98, 77 L. Ed. 1058, 53 S. Ct. 530.

¶2 There is no error in the judgment of the trial court, and it is in all things affirmed.