City of Kansas City v. Smiley
This text of 64 P. 613 (City of Kansas City v. Smiley) 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.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This action was prematurely brought. The court below properly held that the original plaintiff, Smiley, could not maintain his action, and the defendants Horstman and Kirby can have no standing in court for the purpose of contesting generally the right of a city to construct a proposed improvement, but can only be heard to complain when their personal rights are jeopardized.
In this case the city has not apportioned the cost of constructing the proposed sewer upon the real estate lying in the district, and may never do so. It has not levied any tax on the property of the intervenors, and it cannot now be known that such a tax will ever be levied. At the time this action was commenced the danger of injury to the intervenors “was too remote and problematical to warrant the granting of an injunction,” and the action, therefore, cannot be main[720]*720bained. (Mason v. Independence, 61 Kan. 188, 59 Pac. 272.)
The judgment of the district court will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
64 P. 613, 62 Kan. 718, 1901 Kan. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-kansas-city-v-smiley-kan-1901.