Home/Supreme Court of Kansas/Neeland v. State ex rel. Bradford

Neeland v. State ex rel. Bradford

39 Kan. 154
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 39 Kan. 154 (Neeland v. State ex rel. Bradford) 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
Neeland v. State ex rel. Bradford, 39 Kan. 154 (kan 1888).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

This was an action brought by the attorney general, in the name of the state of Kansas, on May 23, 1887, in the district court of Hamilton county, against J. M. Neeland, Joseph Voorhees, P. H. Pomeroy, J. M. Hicks, J. J. Milliken, Martin S. Culver, H. G. Pulton, J. R. Campbell, G. C. W. Richards, Mansfield Young, John Spear, and H. C. Wherritt, for an injunction, temporary and perpetual, to restrain the defendants “from exercising or performing any power, privilege or duty conferred by law upon county officers.” The temporary injunction prayed for was allowed by the judge of the district court at chambers at the commencement of the action, and without any notice to the defendants. Afterward a motion was made by the defendants to discharge [155]*155the temporary injunction, which motion was heard on June 10, 1887, by the judge of the district court at chambers, and the motion was overruled; and to reverse the order of the district judge granting the temporary injunction, and the order refusing to discharge the same, the defendants, as plaintiffs in error, have brought the case to this court.

The plaintiffs in error, defendants below, claimed in their motion presented to the judge below, and now claim in this court, that the injunction was erroneously granted for several reasons, as follows:

“1. The petition upon which the said temporary injunction was granted does not state facts sufficient to authorize the granting of the same.
“ 2. Said petition is insufficient in law to authorize the granting of said restraining order or injunction.
“3. Said petition on its face seeks to enjoin the defendants, as officers, from exercising their duties as such officers, and hence is insufficient on that ground.
“4. Said petition seeks an injunction restraining officers exercising the duties of their offices, pending litigation for said offices.
“5. Said injunction is prematurely brought.
“ 6. The plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue.
“ 7. That the said order of temporary injunction was granted without notice to said defendants or their attorneys, and contrary to rule 14 of the rules prescribed by the honorable judge of this [the district] court.”

It appears that Hamilton county was organized in 1886; that the town of Kendall was designated as the temporary county seat of the county; that at the- first election no place was chosen as the permanent county seat of the county; that on November 2, 1886, the day of the general election for that year, a second election was held for the purpose, among others, of permanently locating the county seat of the county, and of electing county officers. It appears that various places were voted for for the county seat, and various persons were voted for for the several county offices. Two principal tickets for the several county offices were voted at that election, one of [156]*156which was generally supported by the people favorable to the town of Syracuse for the county seat, and the other by the people favorable to other places for the county seat. It is admitted by the plaintiff below that the following persons who were supported by the opposition to Syracuse, were elected, to wit: A. A. Gr. Stayton, county commissioner; C. C. Mills, sheriff; J. M. Hicks, county clerk, and J. W. Beatty, county surveyor. But it is claimed and alleged by the plaintiff below that all the remainder of the persons whose names were on the opposition ticket were defeated. It is also alleged that the town of Syracuse was chosen as the permanent county seat of the county. This we know from the evidence in another case which we have just decided, (The State, ex rel., v. Mills, Sheriff, ante, p. 76,) is not true. In fact, no place was chosen at that election as the permanent county seat of the county, and the town of Kendall still remains the temporary county seat. For the purposes of this case, however, we shall consider the allegation of the plaintiff below, that Syracuse has been chosen the permanent county seat, as true. It is also alleged by the plaintiff below that J. H. Bentley was elected treasurer of the county, but from the evidence in another case which we have recently decided, (The State, ex rel., v. Comm’rs of Hamilton Co., ante, p. 85,) we know that this allegation is not true. Joseph A. Borders was unquestionably elected county treasurer for that county, and Bentley was not elected. But for the purposes of this case, we shall also consider the allegation of the plaintiff below, that Bentley was elected county treasurer, as true. We think in all probability that very nearly all the persons whose names were on the opposition ticket were elected, and that not more than about three of the persons whose names were on the Syracuse ticket were elected; but for the purposes of this case we shall consider all the allegations of the plaintiff as true, and upon that theory we shall decide this case. The canvass of the election, as shown by “Exhibit A” of the plaintiff’s petition, and as stated by the county commissioners and the county clerk, in tabular form, is as follows:

[157]

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

Related

Hollarn v. Alden
1940 OK 120 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1940)
Depew v. Wichita Retail Credit Ass'n
42 P.2d 214 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1935)
Ekern v. McGovern
142 N.W. 595 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1913)
Landes v. Walls
66 N.E. 679 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 Kan. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neeland-v-state-ex-rel-bradford-kan-1888.