Pennington v. Kansas Turnpike Authority

• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROBB; HALL
• Citation: Pennington v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 180 Kan. 638, 305 P.2d 849 (Kan. 1957)
• Decision Date: 12 January 1957
• Docket Number: No. 40372,40372
• Parties: Glen A. PENNINGTON, Appellee, v. The KANSAS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Appellant.

Page 849

305 P.2d 849

180 Kan. 638

Glen A. PENNINGTON, Appellee, v. The KANSAS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Appellant.

No. 40372.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 12, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court.

The record examined where a property owner sought recovery under G.S.1955 Supp. 68-2015 for damages caused by the Kansas Turnpike Authority in carrying out its powers, and it is held, the trial court did not err in overruling a demurrer to the petition. Other rulings not particularly specified in the notice of appeal present nothing for appellate review.

Robert M. Cowger, Topeka, argued the cause, and Thomas W. Cunningham, Topeka, and Roy W. Riegle, Jr., Emporia, were with him on the briefs for appellant.

Samuel Mellinger, Emporia, argued the cause, and Clarence V. Beck and John G. Atherton, Emporia, were with him on the briefs for appellee.

ROBB, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court overruling a demurrer of the Kansas Turnpike Authority to the petition of plaintiff in which he seeks to recover damages as a result of construction activities on the Kansas Turnpike.

For convenience and clarity we shall hereafter refer to the appellant as K.T.A., to appellee as plaintiff, and to the Kansas Turnpike as the turnpike. All statutes involving the turnpike are to be found in G.S.1955 Supp. 68-2001 to 68-2029, inclusive.

While it is true that at the outset K.T.A. entered a special appearance for the sole and only purpose of attacking the jurisdiction of the trial court because it contended the venue lay in Shawnee county, we are unable to give consideration thereto since in its notice of appeal K.T.A. appealed only from the ruling of the trial court which overruled its demurrer to plaintiff's petition. It is necessary that a notice of appeal must particularly specify all orders from which the appeal is taken as otherwise they are no part of the appeal and present nothing for appellate review. G.S.1949, 60-3306; Rierson v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 146 Kan. 30, 33, 69 P.2d 1; Nicholas v. Latham, 179 Kan. 348, syl. 1, 295 P.2d 631; Bortzfield v. Sutton, 180 Kan. 46, syl. 2, 299 P.2d 584; Foster v. Humburg, 180 Kan. 64, 70, 299 P.2d 46.

The demurrer stated (1) the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant (K.T.A.) or the subject of the action and (2) the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled and this appeal by K.T.A. followed.

The K.T.A. argues at great length on the proposition that it is clothed with immunity from a suit...