City of Paola v. Russell

Supreme Court of Kansas

City of Paola v. Russell

89 P. 651, 75 Kan. 826, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 143

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 9, 1907

DocketNo. 14,751

StatusPublished

This text of 89 P. 651 (City of Paola v. Russell) 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

City of Paola v. Russell, 89 P. 651, 75 Kan. 826, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 143 (kan 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

H. C. Hanna and four other property owners brought a suit against the cfiy of Paola to enjoin the collection of a special tax levied to pay for the construction of a sewer, and obtained a judgment granting them a permanent injunction, which the city seeks in this proceeding to reverse. Since the petition in error was filed a settlement has been effected between the city and all of the plaintiffs excepting Hanna, whose case stood upon a different footing. No appearance has been made in this court in behalf of Hanna, and we are not advised as to his precise contention. It appears, however, that his property has [827]*827been benefited by the improvement in question, and that upon any theory he ought in fairness to bear some part of the cost. He has neither paid nor offered to pay any of it. We see no reason why under the general rule he should not for this reason be denied all relief.

A reversal is therefore ordered, with directions to enter judgment against him.

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

Per Curiam:

H. C. Hanna and four other property owners brought a suit against the cfiy of Paola to enjoin the collection of a special tax levied to pay for the construction of a sewer, and obtained a judgment granting them a permanent injunction, which the city seeks in this proceeding to reverse. Since the petition in error was filed a settlement has been effected between the city and all of the plaintiffs excepting Hanna, whose case stood upon a different footing. No appearance has been made in this court in behalf of Hanna, and we are not advised as to his precise contention. It appears, however, that his property has [827]*827been benefited by the improvement in question, and that upon any theory he ought in fairness to bear some part of the cost. He has neither paid nor offered to pay any of it. We see no reason why under the general rule he should not for this reason be denied all relief.

A reversal is therefore ordered, with directions to enter judgment against him.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 P. 651, 75 Kan. 826, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-paola-v-russell-kan-1907.