State ex rel. Little v. Spencer

37 P. 174, 53 Kan. 655
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 6, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by84 cases

This text of 37 P. 174 (State ex rel. Little v. Spencer) 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
State ex rel. Little v. Spencer, 37 P. 174, 53 Kan. 655 (kan 1894).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

This is 'an original proceeding in this court, to obtain a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling the defendant, John Spencer, as road overseer of road district No. 2, Grainfield township, Gove county, to open up certain highways, and remove obstructions therefrom.

The principal and only question involved in this case is the constitutionality and application of chapter 229 of the Laws 1889, entitled “An act declaring all section lines in the counties of Seward, Meade, Haskell, Grant, Garfield, Gray, [656]*656Gove, Logan, Wallace and Stevens public highways,” which took effect March 27, 1889. The legislature has the power to declare section lines public highways, provided compensation is allowed to the landowners for the land taken. The questions of utility, convenience’ and practicability have all been considered and decided by the legislature, as well as the location of the highways and the limits of their extent and width. (Hughes v. Milligan, 42 Kas. 396; Kent v. Comm’rs of Labette Co., 42 id. 534.) The provisions of the act provide for a tribunal before which the landowners may make their claims for damages. It is not necessary, where the state or a municipal corporation takes private property, that the compensation shall be first paid, if provision is made for its payment, and a proper tribunal constituted, so that the landowner may make his claim for and receive damages. (Hughes v. Milligan, supra; Kent v. Comm’rs of Labette Co., supra.) Section 12 of the general road law (¶ 5485, Gen. Stat. of 1889) provides that

“It shall be the duty of each and every road overseer to-open or cause to be opened all county and state roads and highways which have been or may hereafter be laid out or established through any part of the district assigned to such overseer, first giving notice to the owner or owners, or their agent or agents, if residing in the county, through whose inclosed or cultivated lands such road is laid out or established, notifying such owners aforesaid to open said road through their lands within 90 davs after service of such notice.” (See, also, § 27, ¶ 5500, Gen. Stat. of 1889.)

The decisions of this court, ruling that the statutes declaring section lines to be public highways are unconstitutional because no prevision was made for compensation to the landowners, do not apply to this case, as provisions for the payment of damages are contained in chapter 229, Laws of 1889. With the wisdom or policy of the statute, we have no concern. Presumably the statute was passed at the instance of members of the legislature from Gove and other counties referred to therein. The peremptory writ will be awarded as prayed for.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

State v. Brown
262 P.3d 1055 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2011)
State v. Gunby
144 P.3d 647 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2006)
State v. Scobee
748 P.2d 862 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1988)
State v. Hundley
693 P.2d 475 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1985)
Lewis v. Marmon
655 P.2d 953 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1982)
Reemsnyder v. State
416 A.2d 767 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
White v. State
238 S.E.2d 247 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
State v. Campbell
500 P.2d 21 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1972)
State v. Booker
434 P.2d 801 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1967)
State v. Myrick
317 P.2d 485 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1957)
State v. Knox
18 N.W.2d 716 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1945)
State v. Richardson
84 P.2d 699 (Washington Supreme Court, 1938)
State v. Whitman
74 P.2d 696 (Utah Supreme Court, 1937)
State v. Pfeifer
56 P.2d 442 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1936)
State v. Zier
25 P.2d 583 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1933)
State v. Fine
2 P.2d 1016 (Montana Supreme Court, 1931)
Griffin v. State
1931 OK CR 411 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1931)
Webb v. Commonwealth
152 S.E. 366 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1930)
State v. Furthmyer
277 P. 1019 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1929)
State v. Hardisty
249 P. 617 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 P. 174, 53 Kan. 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-little-v-spencer-kan-1894.