Putnam v. City of Salina

• Decision Date: 10 June 1933
• Docket Number: 30732,30733.
• Citation: 22 P.2d 957,137 Kan. 731
• Parties: PUTNAM et al. v. CITY OF SALINA et al. HOUSEL et al. v. SAME.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

22 P.2d 957

137 Kan. 731

PUTNAM et al. v. CITY OF SALINA et al.

HOUSEL et al. v. SAME.

Nos. 30732, 30733.

Supreme Court of Kansas

June 10, 1933

Appeal from District Court, Saline County; Dallas Grover, Judge.

On motion for modification of judgment.

Motion denied.

For former opinion, see 136 Kan. 637, 17 P.2d 827.

W. S Norris, of Salina, for appellants.

C. W Burch, B. I. Litowich, LaRue Royce, L. E. Clevenger, and E S. Hampton, all of Salina, for appellees.

DAWSON Justice.

In these appeals a reargument was ordered on appellants' motion to modify our opinion and judgment, filed January 7 1933, Putnam v. City of Salina, 136 Kan. 637, 17 P.2d 827.

The motion was predicated on the fact that, contrary to the opinion and judgment of the trial court, the statute, chapter 87 of the Laws of 1917, with its subsequent amendments, as it now appears in R. S. 12--635 et seq., and R.S.Supp. 1931, 12--635, 12--645, is valid; and, so far as the judgment of the trial court was based upon its assumption that the statute as amended was invalid, it was erroneous. But on account of other irregularities alleged in plaintiff's petitions, which involved issues of fact and which were supported by evidence and not subject to our review because of the limited appeals the defendants chose to bring to this court, the judgment of the trial court enjoining a certain project of flood control set on foot by defendants under Resolution No. 466, adopted by the city of Salina on March 18, 1929, and City Ordinances Nos. 3837 and 3883, enacted pursuant thereto, was affirmed.

It is now suggested that, since the statute has been held valid, this resolution and these ordinances should likewise be held valid, so that the city may go ahead with this proposed flood control project if and when it sees fit to do so, and that this court should redraft the trial court's decree of injunction to limit its scope accordingly. But owing to the limited record presented for appellate review, this court does not have the requisite facts before it upon which to formulate a modified injunction with justice to everybody concerned. While this court upheld the statute which the trial court regarded as invalid, it is a familiar rule of appellate courts that a judgment may be altogether correct, although the reasoning processes by which it is arrived at may be more or less unsound. State ex rel. v. Iola Theater Corp., 136 Kan. 411, 414, 15 P.2d 459.

This court has no way of telling what rights of property owners have rested in the security of the trial court's injunctive decree and which might be affected by any further modification of that injunction at this late date. We therefore conclude that, if and when the city of Salina again sets about some project of...