McCrea v. City of Leavenworth
| Decision Date | 09 July 1891 |
| Parties | MCCREA v. CITY OF LEAVENWORTH. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
A plaintiff who seeks to restrain a city of the first class from collecting a special tax on his property on account of the cost of the improvement of a street upon which his property is situate is not entitled to a judgment on the pleadings, when an answer by said city is on file, verified by the city attorney, that is in effect a general denial.
Commisisoners’ decision. Error from district court Leavenworth county; ROBERT CROZIER, Judge.
Cole McCrea and F. G. Hentig, for plaintiff in error.
C. F. W. Dassler, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, with many others who are not here complaining, commenced an action in the district court of Leaven worth county on the 9th day of August, 1887, to restrain the collection of an assessment upon their lots for paving with cedar blocks the street upon which the lots fronted. A special ordinance was passed by the city on the 23d day of July, 1887, determining the specific amount of special tax levied upon each lot or half lot in each block fronting on said street. The district court of Leaven worth refused to restrain the collection of the special tax, and the case is here for review. At the conclusion of the trial in the district court time was given for the plaintiff in error to make a case for this court, but this was not done and the order allowing it was subsequently vacated at the request of the plaintiff in error. He brings here a certified copy of his petition, with exhibits, the answer of the defendant city, a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the order overruling it, with some other matters, and a copy of the final judgment; and these are certified to by the clerk as being true copies of the originals on file in his office. There is nothing then before this court but a certified copy of the pleadings and judgment. There is no case made, no bill of exceptions, no evidence. There is a motion for a judgment for the plaintiff in error on the pleadings, and an adverse ruling thereon, and there are a number of propositions that by inference were propounded to the trial court for answer, but, as the evidence is not here, we do not know whether any or all of them would be material as special findings of fact or conclusions of law. The motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly overruled because there was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial