Fulkerson v. The Board of Commissioners of Harper County
Decision Date | 01 July 1883 |
Citation | 1 P. 261,31 Kan. 125 |
Parties | G. Y. FULKERSON v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HARPER COUNTY |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Harper District Court.
THE opinion states the facts. April 3, 1883, judgment for The Board of Commissioners and against Fulkerson, who brings it here for reversal.
Judgment affirmed.
Finch & Finch, and I. P. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
J. Paul Grove, for defendant in error.
OPINION
On July 15, 1882, G. Y. Fulkerson and fifty-five others petitioned the board of county commissioners of Harper county, Kansas "to set off and organize a new township" in that county. July 17, 1882, the board refused to grant the prayer of this petition. Afterward, G. Y. Fulkerson took an appeal to the district court, provided he could take an appeal in such a case. He founded his right to take the appeal upon § 30 of the act relating to counties and county officers, and upon the claim that he was "a signer of said petition, and a resident, householder, tax-payer, and voter, within the boundaries of said proposed new township." April 3, 1883, the county attorney of Harper county moved to dismiss the appeal, on the grounds that Fulkerson could not properly take an appeal, and that no appeal lies from the board of county commissioners to the district court in such a case. The district court sustained this motion, dismissed the appeal, and rendered judgment for costs in favor of the board of county commissioners and against Fulkerson; and Fulkerson now brings the case to this court, and asks for a reversal of said judgment.
Section 16, chapter 25, of the act relating to counties and county officers, provides, among other things, as follows:
Section 24, of said chapter, reads as follows:
Sections 28 and 29, of said chapter, provide for the allowing of accounts against the county and the issuing of orders therefor.
Section 30, of said chapter, reads as follows:
Under the constitution and statutes of the state of Kansas the board of county commissioners has various powers--legislative, administrative, executive discretionary, and quasi judicial. Many of their powers are of a purely political character, but some of them, as before stated, are of a quasi judicial character. Some of the statutes conferring power upon the county commissioners are mandatory, while other statutes conferring power upon them are purely directory, and the powers conferred are often entirely discretionary. The constitution provides, among other things, that "the legislature may confer upon tribunals transacting the county business of the several counties such powers of local legislation and administration as it shall deem expedient." (Const., art. 2, § 21.) The legislature has conferred upon the board of county...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Troy Twp., 28008
...or discretionary power or purely ministerial power, no appeal will lie." Id. at 163–65, 37 N.W. at 739–40 (quoting Fulkerson v. Stevens , 31 Kan. 125, 1 P. 261, 263 (1883) ). The court concluded that the issue was quasi-judicial and that the appeal was therefore constitutionally permissible......
-
Codington Cnty. v. Bd. of Com'rs of Codington Cnty.
...nature that an appeal will lie. The reasons for such holding are well stated in the following quotation from Fulkerson v. Board of Com'rs, 31 Kan. 125, 1 P. 261, which was quoted with approval by Chief Justice Tripp in Pierre Water-Works Co. v. Hughes Co., 5 Dak. 145, 37 N. W. 733: “Now wil......
-
Codington County v. Codington County Commissioners
...nature that an appeal will lie. The reasons for such holding are well stated in the following quotation from Fulkerson v. Board of Com’rs, 31 Kan. 125, 1 P. 261, which was quoted with approval by Chief Justice Tripp in Pierre Water-Works Co. v. Hughes Co., 5 Dak. 145, 37 NW “Now will an app......
-
Heine Farms v. Yankton County
...commission decision was explored in greater detail in the Codington County case cited above. Quoting with approval from Fulkerson v. Stevens, 31 Kan. 125, 1 P. 261 (1883), this Court [W]hat are the limitations upon the privilege of persons to take appeals from the decisions of the board of ......