Hurla v. Kansas City

• Decision Date: 09 July 1891
• Parties: HURLA et al. v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY et al.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

27 P. 143

46 Kan. 738

HURLA et al. v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY et al.

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 9, 1891

Syllabus

1. A city of the first class has power to extend and enlarge its boundaries so as to include within it a continuous body of land lying contiguous to the prior limits of said city, when the ordinance providing for such extension is approved by the district court of the county within which said city is situate.

2. A city of the first class has the power to enlarge or extend its limits so as to include several tracts of land, some of which adjoin the city, and others adjoining those that do adjoin the city, so as to form one contiguous body, but the annexation ordinance must be approved by the district court of the county in the manner and under the conditions and requirements of the statute.

3. A tract of land wholly within the limits of a city of the first class, although never divided into blocks, lots, streets, and alleys, and used for agricultural and horticultural purposes is subject to be taxed for ordinary city revenues. The case of Mendenhall v. Burton, 42 Kan. 570, 22 P. Rep 558, cited and followed.

Commissioners’ decision. Error from district court Wyandotte county; O. L. MILLER, Judge.

Dail, Bird & Marsh, for plaintiffs in error.

Winfield Freeman, A. H. Cobb, and L. C. True, for defendants in error.

OPINION

SIMPSON, C.

The plaintiffs in error commenced an action in the district court of Wyandotte county to set aside certain proceedings theretofore had, by which it was attempted to make their land, consisting of 30 acres devoted to agriculture and horticulture, a part of the city of Kansas City, by an extension of the limits of said city; and also commenced an action against the county treasurer of said county to enjoin the levy and collection of the taxes of 1890 on said land. The petitions specifically alleged that on the 30th day of December, 1887, the city of Kansas City attempted, by ordinance duly published, to extend its boundaries so that the same should include the territory of the original cities of Kansas City, Armourdale, and Wyandotte, together with all the additions thereto, and all of the territory embraced in the original consolidated city of Kansas City, Kan., and all the territory within certain boundary lines fully described in said ordinance; that said ordinance was attempted to be passed on the 30th day of December, 1887; was approved on the 4th day of January, 1888, and was duly published in the Kansas Pioneer, the official paper of said city, and designated in said ordinance, within 20 days after its passage; that after the publication of said ordinance the mayor of said city, at the first regular term of the district court of Wyandotte county, Kan., commenced after said 20 days, presented to the court a copy of said ordinance together with the affidavit showing the proper publication thereof, which were filed with the clerk of said court, and thereupon said court did determine that said publication had been made as by law required, and by its judgment approved, but modified, said ordinance,-first, hearing all objections, if any, and proofs, if any, offered by the city or persons affected by said ordinance, and the limits or area of the said city were attempted to be enlarged or extended as designated in said ordinance, and modified by court, as of the date of the approval or modification, to-wit, on the ___ day of ___, 1888; and the limits of said city were attempted to be extended as in said judgment specified, which limits, as so modified, embraced the said land of plaintiffs; and that the said district court made a record of its finding and determination in the premises; and plaintiffs further alleged that at the time of the passage of the said pretended ordinance, and at the time of the said proceedings in said district court, the said property of plaintiffs was bounded and completely surrounded by unplatted territory, and by territory which did not at said time adjoin to the city limits of said defendant city; and that it was not subdivided into lots, blocks, streets, and alleys; and that the land at said time was used exclusively for horticultural and agricultural purposes, and was surrounded completely and entirely by land of similar kind, and used in the same manner for horticultural and agricultural purposes; that no street of said defendant city was opened to it or touched it any where, nor was any street of said city open to or touching upon the land surrounding said property of plaintiffs; and that the plaintiffs’ land was not accessible by any street leading to the business part of said city, nor was the land surrounding the land of said plaintiffs as aforesaid, accessible by any street leading to the business part of said city; that, by reason of the premises, the said defendant city had no power or authority to pass any ordinance including the land of plaintiffs within the corporate limits of said city, nor did said district court have any power or authority, in passing upon said ordinance, to include the land of plaintiffs within the corporate limits of said city, and said ordinance, and the said judgment of said district court thereon, were and are each thereof absolutely null and void, and of no effect whatever; that neither of the plaintiffs had ever done or suffered to be done on their behalf anything by which they had ratified or confirmed, in law or equity, the said void proceedings of said city and of said district court. Said plaintiffs further alleged that their said land was attempted to be assessed by the authorities of said defendant city at the sum of $13,700, and taxes were levied thereon for the year 1890 in the sum of $730, which taxes were duly extended upon the tax-rolls, and that the said defendant county treasurer threatens to sell the property of plaintiffs therefor; that the assessed valuation of said property before said attempted proceedings were had by which it was pretended to be incorporated into said defendant city was the sum of $2,500, and the taxes thereon amounted to $125; that their land is of no greater value at this time than it was at said time, and that the said sum of $125 would be a just amount of taxes upon the said land of plaintiffs for the year 1890; and that the plaintiffs tendered said sum of $125 to the county treasurer, which was refused, and they tendered said sum in court. To these petitions the defendant city filed demurrers, and upon the hearing of these demurrers it was agreed that the petitions should be amended by incorporating a statement...