EXCHANGE NAT'L CO. v. CITY OF GARBER

EXCHANGE NAT'L CO. v. CITY OF GARBER
1934 OK 467
36 P.2d 11
169 Okla. 83
Case Number: 22615
Decided: 09/25/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

EXCHANGE NATIONAL CO.
v.
CITY OF GARBER.

Syllabus

¶0 Municipal Corporations--Nonliability for Issuance of Void Special Sewer Tax Warrants.
No liability arises, statutory or otherwise, in this state against a municipal corporation because of the issuance of void special sewer tax warrants in which it was attempted to assess benefits against property outside of the municipality, the ordinance making such attempted assessment reciting that the property was within the city limits.

Appeal from District Court, Garfield County; O. C. Wybrant, Judge.

Action by the Exchange National Company against the City of Garber. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. E. Bush and A. J. Kriete, for plaintiff in error.
V. L. Headrick, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is an action by the Exchange National Company, a corporation, against the city of Garber, Okla., for the sum of $ 214.80, with interest, arising out of the issuance by the city of Garber of special sewer tax warrants. The warrants were issued for the improvement, delivered to the contractor and by him sold to the plaintiff in error. After the completion of the improvement and the sale of the warrants, it developed that the property against which, the assessment was made was located outside of the city of Garber. It being conceded that the city had no power to affix a lien for improvements outside its limits, a claim was filed against the city for the amount of the void warrants and interest, was duly rejected, and suit was filed in the proper form for the amount. Demurrer was filed to the amended petition, sustained, the plaintiff electing to stand on the demurrer, suit was dismissed, and appeal taken. Apparently, the liability of the city was based on the fact that the transcript, of the proceedings, in connection with the issuance of the warrants, showed an ordinance of the city reciting the property against which the assessment was made to be within the city of Garber. In other words, the alleged liability of the city was predicated on the issuance of void warrants, supported by an ordinance making false recitals.

¶2 We know of no law, statutory or other wise, rendering a city liable as such: on suet a theory. Section 4402, C. O. S. 1921, in force when the transactions in question occurred, specially provides that the city shall not incur liability because of the construction of sewers.

¶3 The case of City of Tulsa v. Bell, 137 Okla. 159, 278 P. 642, is certainly not an authority supporting plaintiff's construction. It is not in point. So far as inferences or deductions can be made therefrom, it is more against than in favor of plaintiff. The same is true of the other cases cited.

¶4 We are of the opinion that the action of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer and rendering judgment for the defendant should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.