Engle v. City of Topeka

Supreme Court of Kansas

Engle v. City of Topeka

242 P. 154, 120 Kan. 361, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 380

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 2, 1926

DocketNo. 26,966

StatusPublished

This text of 242 P. 154 (Engle v. City of Topeka) 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

Engle v. City of Topeka, 242 P. 154, 120 Kan. 361, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 380 (kan 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The occupant of a house and lot under a contract of purchase, upon which he had paid but a small amount, applied to the city for the installation of water service. The city expended about $70 in putting in service pipe to be paid for by him. After paying but $10 of this he gave up the attempt to complete his purchase of the property, and turned it back to the vendor. The owner then rented it and the tenant asked the city, which had cut off the water, to resume the service. The city refused to do so because it had not been paid for putting in the pipe. This proceeding is brought to require it to do so. The relief sought is denied on the ground that the city is justified in considering the property itself as charged with responsibility for carrying out the original arrangement, as though there had been no change of ownership or possession. Neither the owner, although he may have taken the property back believing the installation of the pipe to have been paid for, npr the tenant can require the city to deliver water through the pipe until it has been reimbursed for its expenditure in installing it.

Judgment for the costs of the proceeding will be rendered against the owner.

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

Per Curiam:

The occupant of a house and lot under a contract of purchase, upon which he had paid but a small amount, applied to the city for the installation of water service. The city expended about $70 in putting in service pipe to be paid for by him. After paying but $10 of this he gave up the attempt to complete his purchase of the property, and turned it back to the vendor. The owner then rented it and the tenant asked the city, which had cut off the water, to resume the service. The city refused to do so because it had not been paid for putting in the pipe. This proceeding is brought to require it to do so. The relief sought is denied on the ground that the city is justified in considering the property itself as charged with responsibility for carrying out the original arrangement, as though there had been no change of ownership or possession. Neither the owner, although he may have taken the property back believing the installation of the pipe to have been paid for, npr the tenant can require the city to deliver water through the pipe until it has been reimbursed for its expenditure in installing it.

Judgment for the costs of the proceeding will be rendered against the owner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 P. 154, 120 Kan. 361, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/engle-v-city-of-topeka-kan-1926.