Bartlett v. Atchison

Decision Date13 June 1884
Citation32 Kan. 134,4 P. 178
CourtKansas Supreme Court
PartiesE. BARTLETT, as Treasurer of Edwards County, v. THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD CO

Error from Edwards District Court.

ACTION commenced October 8, 1883, in the district court of Edwards county, by The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company against E. Bartlett, as treasurer of Edwards county. The petition alleged:

"That it is a corporation duly organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the territory and state of Kansas, and that said defendant is the duly elected qualified and acting treasurer of the said Edwards county Kansas; that plaintiff is now, and for two years last past has been, the owner of certain personal property, to wit Certain tracks, road-bed, right-of-way, water and fuel stations, buildings, and land on which the same are situated adjacent to or connected with the right-of-way, machinery rolling stock, telegraph lines and all instruments connected therewith, material on hand, and supplies provided for operating and carrying on the business of said railroad, together with moneys, credits, and all other property of said railway company, used or held for the purpose of operating its said railroad by said company, and also certain real property, a description of which is hereto attached, and marked 'Exhibit A,' all situate in said Edwards county, Kansas. And plaintiff says that it has paid all legal taxes upon said real and personal property for the year 1882, and that there have been certain illegal taxes levied upon said personal property for said year of 1882, amounting to one hundred and fifty-two and fifty-one one-hundredths ($ 152.51) dollars, upon a valuation of said personal property at the sum of, or value of, one hundred and fifty-two thousand five hundred and twenty-three and seventeen one-hundredths ($ 152,523.17) dollars; and that there have been certain illegal taxes levied upon said real property for said year 1882, to the amount of one hundred and fifty-three and twenty-seven one-hundredths ($ 153.27), and the nature of which is fully set forth in said 'Exhibit A,' and made a part hereof, which said taxes so levied upon real and personal property amount in the aggregate to the sum of three hundred and five and seventy-eight one-hundredths ($ 305.78) dollars. And plaintiff further says, that said taxes, and all of them so remaining unpaid, were illegally levied and placed upon the tax roll of said county of Edwards without color of law therefor; and plaintiff says that said defendant, as such treasurer, threatens to sell said real property for said illegal taxes, and to issue his warrant for said illegal taxes of said personal property, to the great and irreparable injury of said plaintiff, and will so sell said property, and issue his said warrant, unless restrained by this honorable court from so doing. And plaintiff also says, that it has no adequate remedy at law.

"Wherefore, plaintiff prays that a temporary injunction may issue, restraining said defendant, as such treasurer, from selling, or offering to sell, any of said real property described in said 'Exhibit A,' or from issuing his warrant for said illegal taxes upon the personal property hereinbefore described; and upon the final hearing hereof, that said injunction may be made perpetual, and for such other and further relief as in equity and good conscience it may be entitled to, and for costs of this action."

On December 27, 1883, the following agreed statement of facts was filed:

"It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the plaintiff by M. W. Sutton, its attorney, and the defendant by J. E MacArthur, county attorney of said county, that the above-entitled cause shall be tried by this court and to all courts to which this case may be taken and carried, upon the following agreed statement of facts, to wit:

"1. That the assessed valuation of the taxable property of the county of Edwards for the year 1882 did not exceed and was less than five millions of dollars.

"2. That the board of county commissioners of Edwards county for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • The City of Topeka v. McCabe
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1909
    ... ... manifestly intended as a substitute therefor. (The ... State, ex rel., v. Studt, 31 Kan. 245, 1 P ... 635; Bartlett, Treas., v. A. T. & S. F. Rld ... Co., 32 Kan. 134, 4 P. 178; C. K. & N. Rly. Co ... v. City of Manhattan, 45 Kan. 419, 25 P. 879; The ... State ... ...
  • Howard v. Hulbert
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1901
    ... ... 87, 11 A. 137; Hoetzel v. East ... Orange, 50 id. 354, 12 A. 911.) That the two acts are ... repugnant we may not doubt. (Bartlett, Treas., v. A. T ... & S. F. Rld Co., 32 Kan. 134, 4 P. 178.) ... We ... conclude that the general act of 1885 repealed the special ... ...
  • The Atchison v. The Board of County Commissioners of The County of Cloud
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1919
    ... ... the general statutory limit. In Comm'rs of Osborne v ... Blake, 25 Kan. 356, a judgment rendered on county ... warrants issued to pay current expenses was held to be in ... that category, and it was held that an excess tax could not ... be levied to pay such judgment. The case of Bartlett, ... Treas., v. A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co., 32 Kan. 134, 4 P ... 178, had nothing to do with bridges. Taxes for support of the ... poor were held to be current expenses in A. T. & S ... F. Rld. Co. v. Wilhelm, Treas., 33 Kan. 206, 6 P. 273, ... no reference being made to bridges. In A. T. & S ... ...
  • Atchison
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1885
    ... ... the legislature passed an act which limited the levy for the ... current expenses of any one year to one per cent. on the ... dollar, where the taxable property of a county is less than $ ... 5,000,000. (Gen. Stat. of 1868, ch. 25, § 181; Comp ... Laws of 1879, ch. 25, § 220; Bartlett v. A. T. & ... S. F. Rld. Co., 32 Kan. 134.) The levy of two mills upon ... all the taxable property of Jefferson county for the ... "poor-fund," is therefore illegal, because in ... excess of the levy of ten mills for county or current ... expenses, and not having been authorized by a direct ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT