Shouse v. Board of County Com'rs of Cherokee County, Kansas
| Decision Date | 08 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | 34612. |
| Parties | SHOUSE v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, KAN., et al. (MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. et al., Interveners). |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Cherokee County; Vernor J. Bowersock, Judge.
On rehearing.
Former opinion adhered to.
For former opinion, see 151 Kan. 458, 99 P.2d 779.
Don H. Elleman and Paul H. Elleman, both of Columbus, W. W. Brown, of Parsons, W. P. Waggener and O. P. May, both of Atchison, and F. H. Moore, Wm. E. Davis, and James B. McDonough, Jr., all of Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
C. E. Shouse, of Baxter Springs, pro se.
Paul L. Harvey, of Topeka, amicus curiae.
The motion of the appellees for a rehearing in this case was granted. For original opinion, see Shouse v. Cherokee County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 458, 99 P.2d 779. Supplemental briefs by the original parties, and briefs amicus curiae have been filed, and the case has been reargued.
In this case we were called upon to construe the statutes commonly referred to as the cash basis law and the budget law. These laws directly affect the administration of our tax laws in every county of the state. Owing to the great public interest in the decision, the rehearing was granted.
We have re-examined the questions presented and adhere to conclusions reached in our former opinion. If the statutes are to be modified or changed, the appeal must be to the legislature. To accede to arguments pressed upon us would defeat the purpose of these enactments. Such appeals must be addressed to the lawmaking branch of the government,--not to the courts.
Former opinion adhered to.
HARVEY, J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers Bank & Trust v. Homestead Cmty. Dev.
...together. See Shouse v. Board of Cherokee County Comm'rs , 151 Kan. 458, 462, 99 P.2d 779, affirmed Shouse v. Board of Cherokee City Comm'rs , 152 Kan. 41, 102 P.2d 1043 (1940). The purpose of the Cash-Basis Law and the Budget Law is to prevent a deficit in the funds of a municipality at th......
-
Newlin Mach. Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...1938) 82 P.2d 84, 88; Shouse v. Board of Commissioners of Cherokee County, (Kans. 1940) 99 P.2d 779, 782, affirmed on rehearing (Kans. 1940) 102 P.2d 1043. These laws were enacted, according to the Kansas Supreme Court, in order ‘to curb the natural predilection of city officials to spend m......