Enns Milling Co. v. United Water, Gas & Electric Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Enns Milling Co. v. United Water, Gas & Electric Co.

237 P. 1041, 119 Kan. 53, 1925 Kan. LEXIS 399

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 11, 1925

DocketNo. 25,708

StatusPublished

This text of 237 P. 1041 (Enns Milling Co. v. United Water, Gas & Electric Co.) 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

Enns Milling Co. v. United Water, Gas & Electric Co., 237 P. 1041, 119 Kan. 53, 1925 Kan. LEXIS 399 (kan 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

The facts of this case are similar to those of the Consolidated Flour Mills Company against this defendant and against the Kansas Gas and Electric Company (ante, pp. 46, 47), with which it was tried. The district court held the order of the utilities commission, which was like that in the latter case, to be invalid, and inasmuch as a part of the payments at the increased rate had been made within three years, so that the statute of limitations had not barred their recovery, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered for their amount, from which the defendant appeals. Upon the authority of the decisions in the other cases, a reversal is ordered with direction to render judgment for the defendant.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

The facts of this case are similar to those of the Consolidated Flour Mills Company against this defendant and against the Kansas Gas and Electric Company (ante, pp. 46, 47), with which it was tried. The district court held the order of the utilities commission, which was like that in the latter case, to be invalid, and inasmuch as a part of the payments at the increased rate had been made within three years, so that the statute of limitations had not barred their recovery, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered for their amount, from which the defendant appeals. Upon the authority of the decisions in the other cases, a reversal is ordered with direction to render judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 P. 1041, 119 Kan. 53, 1925 Kan. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enns-milling-co-v-united-water-gas-electric-co-kan-1925.