MORGAN PETROLEUM CO. v. OKLAHOMA CITY

MORGAN PETROLEUM CO. v. OKLAHOMA CITY
1934 OK 216
31 P.2d 594
167 Okla. 632
Case Number: 22264
Decided: 04/03/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

MORGAN PETROLEUM CO.
v.
OKLAHOMA CITY.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Municipal Corporations--Constitutional Law--Ordinance Requiring Filing of Surety Bond to Cover Damages as Condition of Right to Drill Oil Well Held not Denial of Due Process of Law.
A municipal ordinance providing that no oil and gas well shall be drilled within certain defined limits within the city until there shall be filed with the city clerk of said city a bond in the sum of $ 200,000 covering each well, executed by some bonding or indemnity company authorized to do business in the state of Oklahoma conditioned for the payment of damages on account of injuries to property, either private or public, or bodily injury, including death, received or suffered by one resulting from the drilling, operation, or maintenance of any well or any structures, etc., appurtenant thereto, is not arbitrary and unreasonable so as to constitute a denial of due process of law violative of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or of section 7, art. 2, of the state Constitution.
See Gant v. Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 86, 6 P.2d 1065; Id., 160 Okla. 62, 15 P.2d 833: Id., 289 U.S. 99, 77 L. Ed. 1058, 53 S. Ct. 530; C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 384, 29 P.2d 952.
2. Same--Doubts Resolved in Favor of Validity of Ordinance.
"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."
Headnote No. 3, Gant v. Oklahoma City, 289 U.S. 99, 77 L. Ed. 1058, 53 S. Ct. 530; C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 384, 29 P.2d 952.
3. Same--Statutes--Enactment not Invalid Because Compliance With Conditions Hard for Particular Persons.
"An otherwise valid statute or ordinance conferring a privilege is not rendered invalid because it chances that particular persons find it hard or even impossible to comply with precedent conditions upon which enjoyment of the privilege is made to depend." Gant v. Oklahoma City, 289 U.S. 99, 77 L. Ed. 1058, 53 S. Ct. 530; C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 384, 29 P.2d 952.
4. Same--Delegation of Right to City to Impose Restrictions on Drilling of Oil Wells Within City not Precluded by Prior Delegation of Authority to Corporation Commission.
"The conferring upon the Corporation Commission of the power to enact rules and regulations governing the drilling of wells for oil or gas within the state, does not deprive the state of power to delegate to cities the right to impose restrictions on the drilling of wells within the limits of the cities." C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 384, 29 P.2d 952.
5. Same--Ordinance Held Constitutional.
Record examined, and held, that the provision of the ordinance in question is a valid legislative enactment and offends no provision of the federal or state Constitutions.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Sam Hooker, Judge.

Action by Oklahoma City against the Morgan Petroleum Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Warren K. Snyder, Edward C. Snyder, and J. H. Bartlett, for plaintiff in error.
A. L. McRill, Municipal Counselor, and H. T. Deupree, Asst. Mun. Counselor, for defendant in error.

MCNEILL, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county, wherein an injunction was granted to the city of Oklahoma City, enjoining the defendant from drilling an oil and gas well in the U-7 drilling zone for failure to file a bond, conditioned as provided in section 21 of Ordinance 3944 of said city in the penal sum of $ 200,000, signed by some bonding or indemnity company authorized to do business in the state of Oklahoma.

¶2 It appears that the defendant failed to comply with said ordinance in the filing of said bond, and attempted in lieu thereof to have a personal bond approved, in which the sureties qualified for more than the amount required by the ordinance and conditioned conformable to requirements of the ordinance, but which the officials of said city did not approve because of noncompliance with the ordinance requiring a surety company bond.

¶3 We consider it unnecessary to discuss the contentions of the defendants. The questions decisive of this case are controlled by the case of Gant v. Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 86, 6 P.2d 1065; and Gant v. Oklahoma City, 160 Okla. 62, 15 P.2d 833, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, 289 U.S. 98, 77 L. Ed. 1058, 53 S. Ct. 530. In that case, Mr. Justice Sutherland, speaking for the Supreme Court, said:

"In view of the peculiar dangers incident to the drilling and operation of an oil or gas well within the limits of a city and of the large interest involved if the well be successful, neither the requirement for a bond nor the amount fixed can be declared arbitrary or unreasonable. Indeed, the objection to the ordinance on these grounds was but indifferently urged at the bar. The point stressed was that the provision of the ordinance requiring the bond to be given by a bonding or indemnity company authorized to do business in the state, and thereby excluding the furnishing of personal sureties, is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to constitute a denial of due process of law. That contention also is without merit. The most that can be said is that whether the guaranty of a bonding or indemnity company operating under state law and subject to state regulation, is of greater worth than that of personal sureties, is a question about which opinions reasonably may differ. But the question is one primarily addressed to the judgment of the law-making body, and that body having determined that the former is so far superior that the latter should be excluded from eligibility altogether, there is nothing in the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires the courts to upset the conclusion."

¶4 We have adhered to those views in the recent cases, to wit: C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 384, 29 P.2d 952, and Hud Oil & Refining Co. v. Oklahoma City, 167 Okla. 457, 30 P.2d 169.

¶5 Judgment affirmed.