Gardner v. Benn

Supreme Court of Kansas

Gardner v. Benn

105 P. 435, 81 Kan. 905, 1910 Kan. LEXIS 458

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedFebruary 12, 1910

DocketNo. 16,215

StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook

Gardner v. Benn, 105 P. 435, 81 Kan. 905, 1910 Kan. LEXIS 458 (kan 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Upon an application for a rehearing our attention is directed to the fact that the thirty acres comprising Beach’s addition to Greenleaf was assessed for the purposes of taxation as one entire tract, and the ordinance the validity of which was upheld in the former opinion only annexes to the city of Greenleaf blocks 1 to 6, inclusive, and lot “A” of Beach’s addition. The judgment will therefore be modified and the cause remanded, with directions to apportion the assessment in accordance with the facts, unless the parties agree to an apportionment, and to grant a permanent injunction against the levy of city taxes against that portion of Beach’s addition which was not annexed to the city. The costs in this court will be divided between the parties.

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

Per Curiam:

Upon an application for a rehearing our attention is directed to the fact that the thirty acres comprising Beach’s addition to Greenleaf was assessed for the purposes of taxation as one entire tract, and the ordinance the validity of which was upheld in the former opinion only annexes to the city of Greenleaf blocks 1 to 6, inclusive, and lot “A” of Beach’s addition. The judgment will therefore be modified and the cause remanded, with directions to apportion the assessment in accordance with the facts, unless the parties agree to an apportionment, and to grant a permanent injunction against the levy of city taxes against that portion of Beach’s addition which was not annexed to the city. The costs in this court will be divided between the parties.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 P. 435, 81 Kan. 905, 1910 Kan. LEXIS 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-benn-kan-1910.