Atchison
Decision Date | 11 June 1887 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY v. BURLINGAME TOWNSHIP, IN OSAGE COUNTY |
Error from Osage District Court.
THE opinion states the nature of the action, and the facts. Judgment for the plaintiff township, at the August Term 1885. The defendant railroad company brings the case to this court.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Geo. R Peck, A. A. Hurd, and J. G. Egan, for plaintiff in error.
William Thomson, for defendant in error.
OPINION
The township filed a reply denying the allegations of the second count of the railroad company's answer, and demurred to the third count on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. This demurrer the court sustained, and to that ruling the railroad company excepted. The case came on for trial on August 25, 1885, and the jury found a verdict in favor of the township, assessing its damages at $ 1,081.28, and also made special findings of fact on questions presented by each party. The railroad company moved for judgment in its favor on the special findings, which motion was overruled. It moved for a new trial, which was refused. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff. The defendant company has brought the case here.
It then provides that it shall be the duty of the county commissioners to appoint viewers, and designate a time and place when they...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Plaintiff v. Whitaker Iron Co..
...693; 107 111. 389; 107 Pa. St. 336; 125 Ind. 421; 39 Pa. St. 92; 37 Vt. 411; 72 Mo. 640; 32 Pa. St. 22; 62 Iowa, 751; 92 Ind. 580; 36 Kan. 628; 34 Pa. St. 12; 40 Vt. 540; 22 N. II. 217; 22 Ohio St. 27; 36 Mich. 487; 10 Pick. 112; 145 Mass. 503; 54 Md. 527; 110 Pa. St. 428; 24 W. Va. 594. W.......
- Sidway v. Missouri Land & Live Stock Company, Limited
-
Bauserman v. Blunt
...or instituting such proceedings as the law regards sufficient to preserve it;' and to the decisions in Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Burlingame Tp. 36 Kan. 628, 633, 14 Pac. Rep. 271, and in Rork v. Douglas Co., 46 Kan. 175, 181, 26 Pac. Rep. 391, as establishing that 'a person cannot prev......
-
Ripley v. Tolbert, 74583
...5 Kan. 498, 515 (1870) stated: '[Statutes of limitation] are considered favorably as statutes of repose.' See also A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Burlingame Township, 36 Kan. 628, Syl. p 1, 14 Pac. 271 (1887) ('Statutes of limitation are statutes of repose which are founded on sound "While there a......