Venard v. Kampmeier

Supreme Court of Kansas

Venard v. Kampmeier

72 P. 1102, 67 Kan. 837, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 361

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 6, 1903

DocketNo. 13,560

StatusPublished

This text of 72 P. 1102 (Venard v. Kampmeier) 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

Venard v. Kampmeier, 72 P. 1102, 67 Kan. 837, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 361 (kan 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Guriam:

This is an action in the nature of quo warranto to determine whether plaintiff is entitled to hold the office of councilman in the city of Kansas City, Kan. The question involved.is, Does the charter act of ’cities of [838]*838the first class passed in 1903 (Laws 1903, oh. 122) authorize the election of councilmen in such cities having more than 50,000 inhabitants ? In view of the conclusion reached in Gilbert v. Craddock, ante, page 346,72 Pac.869, we deem it unnecessary to enter into a lengthy discussion of the matter here involved. We are persuaded from all the considerations that it is necessarily inferable from the terms of the act that it was the intention of the legislature thereby to make the office of councilman an elective one. The plaintiff having received a majority of the votes cast for councilman in his ward at the election held on April 7, 1908, is therefore entitled to hold that office.

Judgment will be entered in his favor.

i

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

Per Guriam:

This is an action in the nature of quo warranto to determine whether plaintiff is entitled to hold the office of councilman in the city of Kansas City, Kan. The question involved.is, Does the charter act of ’cities of [838]*838the first class passed in 1903 (Laws 1903, oh. 122) authorize the election of councilmen in such cities having more than 50,000 inhabitants ? In view of the conclusion reached in Gilbert v. Craddock, ante, page 346,72 Pac.869, we deem it unnecessary to enter into a lengthy discussion of the matter here involved. We are persuaded from all the considerations that it is necessarily inferable from the terms of the act that it was the intention of the legislature thereby to make the office of councilman an elective one. The plaintiff having received a majority of the votes cast for councilman in his ward at the election held on April 7, 1908, is therefore entitled to hold that office.

Judgment will be entered in his favor.

i

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 P. 1102, 67 Kan. 837, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venard-v-kampmeier-kan-1903.