Kansas
| Decision Date | 10 November 1888 |
| Citation | 40 Kan. 192,19 P. 636 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE KANSAS, OKLAHOMA & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. ISAAC F. SMITH |
Error from Wilson District Court.
CONDEMNATION proceeding for railroad right-of-way. The opinion states the case.
Motion to dismiss sustained and petition in error and case dismissed.
Geo. R Peck, A. A. Hurd, and Robert Dunlap, for plaintiff in error.
S. S Kirkpatrick, for defendant in error.
OPINION
On March 15, 1886, the Kansas, Oklahoma & Texas Railway Company instituted proceedings for the condemnation of a right-of-way for its railway through Wilson county, and in such condemnation proceedings the commissioners assessed damages to Isaac F. Smith, one of the owners of land through which the railway was located, to the amount of $ 335. On May 6, 1886, Smith filed an appeal bond with the county clerk of that county for the purpose of taking the proceedings on appeal to the district court. On May 31, 1886, the said railway company and about nine other railway companies consolidated with each other under the laws of Kansas, (Comp. Laws of 1885, P 5221,) and formed one single railroad company under the corporate name of "the Chicago, Kansas & Western Railroad Company." On August 18, 1886, the condemnation proceedings, so far as they related to Smith's appeal, were filed in the district court. On September 16, 1886, Smith filed a petition in the case setting forth the grounds of his complaint, which petition was entitled "Isaac F. Smith v. The Kansas, Oklahoma & Texas Railway Company," and prayed in such petition for a judgment against such railway company for the sum of $ 1,500 as damages. On September 28, 1886, an answer was filed purporting to be the answer of the Kansas, Oklahoma & Texas Railway Company, entitled in the same way as the petition had previously been entitled, and denying generally all the allegations of the petition. On October 6 to 8, 1886, a trial was had before the court and a jury -- the plaintiff, Smith, appearing in person and by counsel, and the supposed railway company purporting to appear by counsel, and on October 8, 1886, a verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Smith, and against the supposed railway company, for $ 950. On May 28, 1887, a petition in error with a case-made for the supreme court was filed in this court, purporting to make the Kansas, Oklahoma & Texas Railway Company the plaintiff in error, and Isaac F. Smith the defendant in error; which petition in error prayed for a reversal of the aforesaid judgment. On September 29, 1888, a motion was filed in this court by counsel for Smith asking that the aforesaid petition in error and case be dismissed from this court on the ground that the aforesaid railway company had by its voluntary consolidation with the other railway companies ceased to exist as a corporate entity; had become defunct and cannot now prosecute a petition in error in the supreme court.
We think the motion for dismissal must be sustained. On May 31 1886, when the Kansas, Oklahoma &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The A. R. Young Construction Company v. Dunne
...... existence of the corporation has terminated. . . 5. SAME--Generally. Other questions raised are held to be. without merit. . . C. H. Brooks, Willard Brooks, Howard T. Fleeson, all of Wichita,. and Charles M. Miller, of Kansas City, Mo., for the. appellants. . . Chester. I. Long, Austin M. Cowan, Claude I. Depew, James G. Norton,. W. E. Stanley, Thomas E. Elcock and James G. Martin, all of. Wichita, for the appellees. . . . OPINION. . . . JOHNSTON, C. J.:. . . This. ......
-
Evans v. Interstate Rapid Transit Ry. Co.
...... from Clay Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. M. Sandusky, Judge. . . . Reversed and remanded. . . Warner,. Dean & Hagerman for appellant. . . (1). Upon the consolidation of the defendant company with the. "Kansas City & Wyandotte Railway & Tunnel Company,". "The Riverview Railway Company" and "The. Brighton & Chelsea Park Railway Company," the defendant. railway company, ceased to exist as a corporation, its power. to sue and capacity to be sued by that name was extinguished,. and a new corporation was ......
-
Atlanta Newspapers v. Doyal
...becomes absolutely defunct, and cannot afterwards continue to prosecute or defend any action in its original name. Kan. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 40 Kan. 192, 19 P. 636; Wagner v. Atchison R. Co., 9 Kan.App. 661, 58 P. 1018. However, 'it is generally held that, even in the absence of a savi......
-
Glazier v. Heneybuss
...to the same formula we cite the following cases in support of the rule herein announced: Angell v. Martin, 24 Kan. 334; Railway Company v. Smith, 40 Kan. 192, 19 P. 636; Cunkle v. Railroad Co., 54 Kan. 194, 40 P. 184; Berkley v. Tootle, 62 Kan. 701, 64 P. 620; Reaves v. Long, 63 Kan. 700, 6......