Thorpe v. Cochran

52 P. 107, 7 Kan. App. 726, 1898 Kan. App. LEXIS 408
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas
DecidedFebruary 10, 1898
DocketNo. 293
StatusPublished

This text of 52 P. 107 (Thorpe v. Cochran) 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
Thorpe v. Cochran, 52 P. 107, 7 Kan. App. 726, 1898 Kan. App. LEXIS 408 (kanctapp 1898).

Opinion

[727]*727The opinion of the court was delivered by

Schoonover, J.:

This is a motion to quash an alternative writ of mandamus which has heretofore been issued, commanding defendant, as treasurer of Kearny county, to receive a county warrant in payment of county taxes, and a school-district warrant in payment of school-district taxes,' notwithstanding the order of priority of payment of warrants as provided in section 7, chapter 50, General Statutes of 1897.

We think said chapter 50 is constitutional, and applicable to this case. To receive a warrant in payment of taxes is payment of the warrant. The statute above referred to does not, in our opinion, repeal section 108, chapter 27, and section 141 of chapter 158, General Statutes of 1897, but has the effect only to modify same. The duty of a treasurer generally -to receive warrants for taxes remains unchanged; it is only a contingency or an exception which is provided for by chapter 50. Being, however, constitutional and the latest legislative expression, it is controlling. It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by the court that the alternative writ of mandamus heretofore issued be and the same is hereby quashed, and that the defendant recover of the plaintiff his costs herein.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 P. 107, 7 Kan. App. 726, 1898 Kan. App. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thorpe-v-cochran-kanctapp-1898.