Gant v. Oklahoma City

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Gant v. Oklahoma City

1932 OK 469, 15 P.2d 833, 160 Okla. 62, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 673

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 21, 1932

Docket23369

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 1932 OK 469 (Gant v. Oklahoma City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gant v. Oklahoma City, 1932 OK 469, 15 P.2d 833, 160 Okla. 62, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 673 (Okla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDREWS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county in favor of the defendants in error, the defendants in the trial court, against the plaintiffs in error, the plaintiffs in the trial court. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

The plaintiffs instituted an action for the purpose of procuring a temporary and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants sought a temporary and a permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. The trial court denied the prayer of the’ plaintiffs and granted a temporary injunction against them in favor of the defendants. From that judgment an appeal was taken to this court.

This court, in determining that appeal, in the case of Gant v. City of Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 86, 6 P. (2d) 1065, affirmed the judgment of the trial court and said:

“We cannot see that the city ordinance, in requiring this $200,000 bond, is unreasonable, or unreasonable in requiring a surety known to be solvent and subject to regulation by our laws. The three judges below thought the regulations reasonable. Nothing has been shown indicating that the giving of this bond would in any manner interfere with the lawful rights of the plaintiffs below. It may be their misfortune that they dt> not get all they want, but the right of life and property, and to enjoy the gains of their own industry, is guaranteed to every person in the city of Oklahoma City by the state Constitution. Considering its size and *63 cost, and considering the probable profits, it is not unreasonable as compared to the property of others endangered. As compared to the hazard to human life, it is a bagatelle. ”

Thei trial court denied the prayer of the plaintiffs and granted a permanent injunction against them in favor of the defendants. From that judgment the present appeal was taken to this court.

The facts shown by the record in this case are substantially the same as those shown by the record on the former appeal. We think that it is neither necessary nor expedient to further discuss the issue presented by the record in this case or the contentions made by the plaintiffs in their briefs. The city of Oklahoma Oity has the power, under its zoning authority (chapter 178, Session, Laws 192S), to regulate and restrict the real estate within the city limits for trade, industry, residence, or other purpose. We have heretofore held that the ordinance attacked is a valid ordinance.

We find no error in the judgment of the trial court, and it is in all things affirmed.

RILEY, HEFNER, GULLISON, SWIN-DALL, McNBILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ„ concur. LESTER, C. J., and CLARK, Y. O. J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ANDREWS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county in favor of the defendants in error, the defendants in the trial court, against the plaintiffs in error, the plaintiffs in the trial court. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

The plaintiffs instituted an action for the purpose of procuring a temporary and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants sought a temporary and a permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. The trial court denied the prayer of the’ plaintiffs and granted a temporary injunction against them in favor of the defendants. From that judgment an appeal was taken to this court.

This court, in determining that appeal, in the case of Gant v. City of Oklahoma City, 150 Okla. 86, 6 P. (2d) 1065, affirmed the judgment of the trial court and said:

“We cannot see that the city ordinance, in requiring this $200,000 bond, is unreasonable, or unreasonable in requiring a surety known to be solvent and subject to regulation by our laws. The three judges below thought the regulations reasonable. Nothing has been shown indicating that the giving of this bond would in any manner interfere with the lawful rights of the plaintiffs below. It may be their misfortune that they dt> not get all they want, but the right of life and property, and to enjoy the gains of their own industry, is guaranteed to every person in the city of Oklahoma City by the state Constitution. Considering its size and *63 cost, and considering the probable profits, it is not unreasonable as compared to the property of others endangered. As compared to the hazard to human life, it is a bagatelle. ”

Thei trial court denied the prayer of the plaintiffs and granted a permanent injunction against them in favor of the defendants. From that judgment the present appeal was taken to this court.

The facts shown by the record in this case are substantially the same as those shown by the record on the former appeal. We think that it is neither necessary nor expedient to further discuss the issue presented by the record in this case or the contentions made by the plaintiffs in their briefs. The city of Oklahoma Oity has the power, under its zoning authority (chapter 178, Session, Laws 192S), to regulate and restrict the real estate within the city limits for trade, industry, residence, or other purpose. We have heretofore held that the ordinance attacked is a valid ordinance.

We find no error in the judgment of the trial court, and it is in all things affirmed.

RILEY, HEFNER, GULLISON, SWIN-DALL, McNBILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ„ concur. LESTER, C. J., and CLARK, Y. O. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK 469, 15 P.2d 833, 160 Okla. 62, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gant-v-oklahoma-city-okla-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack