State ex rel. Smith v. Springer

Supreme Court of Kansas

State ex rel. Smith v. Springer

201 P.2d 116, 166 Kan. 283, 1948 Kan. LEXIS 389

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 27, 1948

DocketNo. 37,602

StatusPublished

This text of 201 P.2d 116 (State ex rel. Smith v. Springer) 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. Smith v. Springer, 201 P.2d 116, 166 Kan. 283, 1948 Kan. LEXIS 389 (kan 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, C. J.:

This was a suit to enjoin the maintenance of a nuisance as defined by G. S. 1935, 21-2130. The procedure was that outlined by G. S. 1935, 21-2131 et seq. The petition was filed October 1, 1948, and summons was duly issued and served. The hearing was had on November 3, 1948, at which time the court granted the injunction as prayed for in the petition. On November 13, 1948, plaintiff filed an affidavit charging the violation of the injunction, upon which a citation was issued and a hearing had on November 30. Defendants filed a motion to set aside the injunction order, which was overruled. The court found the injunction had been violated by the defendant J. E. Springer and imposed a sentence authorized by the statute. From these orders J. E. Springer and Dorothy M. Springer have appealed.

The case was advanced and heard on December 17, 1948, at the same time the case of Manning v. Davis was heard. The briefs in each case were referred to and adopted in the other. The basic contention of appellants here is that G. S. 1935, 21-2130, was rendered nugatory by the adoption of the constitutional amendment [284]*284pertaining to intoxicating liquors at the general election on November 2, 1948. This contention was made in the Manning case and denied. We have examined all of the arguments and authorities cited by the appellants here and find no reason to change our views.

The result is that the appeal in this case should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, C. J.:

This was a suit to enjoin the maintenance of a nuisance as defined by G. S. 1935, 21-2130. The procedure was that outlined by G. S. 1935, 21-2131 et seq. The petition was filed October 1, 1948, and summons was duly issued and served. The hearing was had on November 3, 1948, at which time the court granted the injunction as prayed for in the petition. On November 13, 1948, plaintiff filed an affidavit charging the violation of the injunction, upon which a citation was issued and a hearing had on November 30. Defendants filed a motion to set aside the injunction order, which was overruled. The court found the injunction had been violated by the defendant J. E. Springer and imposed a sentence authorized by the statute. From these orders J. E. Springer and Dorothy M. Springer have appealed.

The case was advanced and heard on December 17, 1948, at the same time the case of Manning v. Davis was heard. The briefs in each case were referred to and adopted in the other. The basic contention of appellants here is that G. S. 1935, 21-2130, was rendered nugatory by the adoption of the constitutional amendment [284]*284pertaining to intoxicating liquors at the general election on November 2, 1948. This contention was made in the Manning case and denied. We have examined all of the arguments and authorities cited by the appellants here and find no reason to change our views.

The result is that the appeal in this case should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 P.2d 116, 166 Kan. 283, 1948 Kan. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-smith-v-springer-kan-1948.