Herdman v. Board of County Commissioners

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Herdman v. Board of County Commissioners

50 P. 946, 6 Kan. App. 513, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 367

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas

DecidedNovember 10, 1897

DocketNo. 183

StatusPublished

This text of 50 P. 946 (Herdman v. Board of County Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herdman v. Board of County Commissioners, 50 P. 946, 6 Kan. App. 513, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 367 (kanctapp 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Dennison, P. J.

George W. Herdman was, from 1870 and'during all the time herein mentioned, the owner of certain lands in Woodson County, Kansas. During the years 1872, 1875, 1878 and 1879, the Board of County Commissioners of Woodson County had established public highways by which they condemned some of his lands for the purpose of establishing such highways.

September 28, 1891, Herdman presented to the Board of County Commissioners of Woodson County his claim for compensation and damages by reason thereof. The claim was. disallowed and he appealed to the District Court. The above allegations were set up in an amended petition, to which the Board demurred. The demurrer was sustained by the court and ITerdman brings the case here for review. The ground upon which the demurrer was sustained was, that the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

The plaintiff in error contends that the words “claim” and “account,” as used in paragraph 1676, General Statutes of 1889, which provides that no claim shall be allowed against the county unless presented within two years, does not apply to claims or accounts of this kind. We fail to perceive any distinction between this sort of claim and any other. Counsel for plaintiff in error argues that, if the’word “claim” is held to apply to such transactions as these, Herdman’s property would be taken without due compensation. We are not to decide whether the [515]*515taking was legally and constitutionally done. We only decide that, when the owner of the land determines to treat the appropriation as completed and files a claim against the county for compensation, the claim must be presented, as are other claims against the county, within two years after the same accrued.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

Dennison, P. J.

George W. Herdman was, from 1870 and'during all the time herein mentioned, the owner of certain lands in Woodson County, Kansas. During the years 1872, 1875, 1878 and 1879, the Board of County Commissioners of Woodson County had established public highways by which they condemned some of his lands for the purpose of establishing such highways.

September 28, 1891, Herdman presented to the Board of County Commissioners of Woodson County his claim for compensation and damages by reason thereof. The claim was. disallowed and he appealed to the District Court. The above allegations were set up in an amended petition, to which the Board demurred. The demurrer was sustained by the court and ITerdman brings the case here for review. The ground upon which the demurrer was sustained was, that the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

The plaintiff in error contends that the words “claim” and “account,” as used in paragraph 1676, General Statutes of 1889, which provides that no claim shall be allowed against the county unless presented within two years, does not apply to claims or accounts of this kind. We fail to perceive any distinction between this sort of claim and any other. Counsel for plaintiff in error argues that, if the’word “claim” is held to apply to such transactions as these, Herdman’s property would be taken without due compensation. We are not to decide whether the [515]*515taking was legally and constitutionally done. We only decide that, when the owner of the land determines to treat the appropriation as completed and files a claim against the county for compensation, the claim must be presented, as are other claims against the county, within two years after the same accrued.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 P. 946, 6 Kan. App. 513, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herdman-v-board-of-county-commissioners-kanctapp-1897.