Darlington v. Board of County Commissioners

88 P. 529, 75 Kan. 810, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 135
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 5, 1907
DocketNo. 14,807
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 88 P. 529 (Darlington v. Board of County Commissioners) 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
Darlington v. Board of County Commissioners, 88 P. 529, 75 Kan. 810, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 135 (kan 1907).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This was a suit to enjoin the making of an embankment for use as a highway along the side of plaintiff’s land. The embankment operated to hold back upon plaintiff’s land water which overflowed the banks of the Republican river in periods of high water, and necessarily injured his farm. His testimony showed that this overflow was no more than surface-water, against which an owner affected may protect himself, and, therefore the court rightly sustained a demurrer to his evidence. The case falls fairly within the rule of Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Keys, 55 Kan. 205, 40 Pac. 275, 49 Am. St. Rep. 249, and Singleton v. Railway Co., 67 Kan. 284, 72 Pac. 786.

[811]*811It is also clear that the strip of land upon which the embankment was built must be regarded as a highway, and that the public authorities .had the right to use and improve it.

The contractors who were building the road, and who were made defendants, did not answer or defend, and plaintiff insists that he was at least entitled to judgment against them by default. In a case of this kind judgment cannot be taken by default, nor unless a prima facie case is made against them by proof offered. This was not done.

While the special findings made by the court after sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence are superfluous, they are not antagonistic to the ruling on the demurrer, and may be regarded as stating the reasons for upholding the demurrer to the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Looman Realty Corp. v. Broad Street Nat. Bank of Trenton
161 A.2d 247 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1960)
Koon v. Sampson
159 P.2d 366 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1945)
Dodge v. Blood
300 N.W. 121 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1941)
Sandstrum v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
39 F.2d 165 (D. Kansas, 1925)
Shoag v. Sheftel
121 A. 799 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1923)
Lane v. Ozias
217 P. 331 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1923)
Ruff v. Hudspeth
115 S.E. 626 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923)
Carr v. Mazon Estate, Inc.
191 P. 137 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1919)
Marshall v. Wichita & Midland Valley Railroad
152 P. 634 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)
Langstroth v. J. C. Turner Cypress Lumber Co.
162 A.D. 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
Walker v. Hafer
170 F. 37 (Sixth Circuit, 1909)
Thompson v. Burns
99 P. 111 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 P. 529, 75 Kan. 810, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darlington-v-board-of-county-commissioners-kan-1907.