Atkinson v. City of Arkansas City

Supreme Court of Kansas

Atkinson v. City of Arkansas City

222 P. 126, 115 Kan. 115, 1924 Kan. LEXIS 204

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 12, 1924

DocketNo. 24,880

StatusPublished

This text of 222 P. 126 (Atkinson v. City of Arkansas City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkinson v. City of Arkansas City, 222 P. 126, 115 Kan. 115, 1924 Kan. LEXIS 204 (kan 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

[116]*116The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action brought by a resident owner of real property in a city of the second class against the city, certain of the city officials and a contracting company for damages alleged to have been caused plaintiff by a wrongful conspiracy entered into among defendants, by which the paving of an alley on which plaintiff’s lots abutted cost him more than the contract price. The several defendants interposed separate demurrers to plaintiff’s petition. Each of the demurrers was sustained and plaintiff has appealed. The ruling of the court is correct. We do not deem it necessary to. set out a copy of the material portion of the petition with a detailed analysis of its deficiencies. Appellant argues that city officials may become liable for damages caused by a fraudulent conspiracy entered into and carried out -by them which results in injury to a citizen. Even conceding this to be true, the petition in this case comes far short of alleging an actionable conspiracy among the defendants resulting in injury to plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

[116]*116The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action brought by a resident owner of real property in a city of the second class against the city, certain of the city officials and a contracting company for damages alleged to have been caused plaintiff by a wrongful conspiracy entered into among defendants, by which the paving of an alley on which plaintiff’s lots abutted cost him more than the contract price. The several defendants interposed separate demurrers to plaintiff’s petition. Each of the demurrers was sustained and plaintiff has appealed. The ruling of the court is correct. We do not deem it necessary to. set out a copy of the material portion of the petition with a detailed analysis of its deficiencies. Appellant argues that city officials may become liable for damages caused by a fraudulent conspiracy entered into and carried out -by them which results in injury to a citizen. Even conceding this to be true, the petition in this case comes far short of alleging an actionable conspiracy among the defendants resulting in injury to plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 P. 126, 115 Kan. 115, 1924 Kan. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-city-of-arkansas-city-kan-1924.