Gardner v. Benn
This text of 105 P. 435 (Gardner v. Benn) 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 ordinance of the city of Greenleaf annexing certain portions of Beach’s addition sufficiently described the several parcels or lots of the addition which it-was intended should be taken into the city, using practically the same designations employed in platting the territory. The word “block” does not appear in the original plat, but the several tracts are numbered as described in the ordinance.
The validity of the act of annexation is not open to collateral attack, and can not be questioned by any party other than the state. For this reason alone the plaintiff was not entitled to enjoin the collection of taxes, levied by the city upon the territory in controversy. (Topeka v. Dwyer, 70 Kan. 244; Railway Co. v. Lyon County, 72 Kan. 13; Chaves v. Atchison, 77 Kan. 176.)
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
105 P. 435, 81 Kan. 442, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-benn-kan-1909.