Slocum v. The City of Wichita
| Decision Date | 11 July 1923 |
| Docket Number | 25,133 |
| Citation | 114 Kan. 260,217 P. 297 |
| Parties | C. D. SLOCUM, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF WICHITA, Appellee |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1923.
Appeal from Sedgwick district court, division No. 1; THOMAS E. ELCOCK, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
John Madden, John Madden, jr., and J. T. Rogers, all of Wichita, for the appellant.
Robert C. Foulston, and George Siefkin, both of Wichita, for the appellee.
Wichita has an ordinance prohibiting the maintenance of gasoline pumps (or other contrivances for the distribution of gasoline) on the curb of a street or alley. The plaintiff brought this action to enjoin its enforcement on the ground that the city had no power to enact it. He appeals from the denial of his application for a temporary injunction. Cities of the first class have general authority "To make all needful police regulations necessary for the preservation of good order and the peace of the city, and to prevent injury to or the destruction of or interference with public or private property" (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 1508) and specific authority to "prohibit awnings, awning-posts, and all other structures or projections projecting upon, over or adjoining the street or sidewalk." (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 1525.) The question as to what obstructions are to be permitted on the streets is for the determination of the city commissioners, the matter being one in which they must necessarily exercise a wide discretion. Of course a particular regulation might be so arbitrary or unreasonable as to be held invalid by a court, but the present case does not appear to us to trench upon even doubtful ground. The plaintiff suggests that the ordinance is unreasonable because it forbids the maintenance of a gasoline pump on a little-used street as completely and absolutely as though it were at a crowded business corner. The problem of regulating street obstructions is a practical one, to be solved by the city commission and not by the courts. This case is within the principles discussed and applied in Desser v. City of Wichita, 96 Kan. 820, 153 P. 1194, and Decker v. City of Wichita, 109 Kan. 796, 202 P. 89.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The City of Emporia v. Humphrey
... ... practical one to be [132 Kan. 687] solved by the governing ... body of the city and not by the courts. ( Slocum v. City ... of Wichita, 114 Kan. 260, 217 P. 297.) The action of the ... governing body with respect to the use of the streets and ... what ... ...
-
Brown v. City of Topeka
... ... property." All the above articles and sections noted are ... from G.S.1935 ... The ... cases of Desser v. City of Wichita, 96 Kan. 820, 153 ... P. 1194, L.R.A.1916D, 246, and City of Wichita v. Home ... Cab Co., 141 Kan. 697, 42 P.2d 972, are cited and ... discussed ... than they were when the Desser Case was decided." 141 ... Kan. 697, at page 699, 42 P.2d 972, 974 ... In the ... case of Slocum v. City of Wichita, 114 Kan. 260, at ... page 261, 217 P. 297, the ordinance in question was one ... prohibiting the maintenance of gasoline pumps ... ...
-
State v. Swift and Company
... ... Maintain Action. The fact that the legal title to the streets ... of a city is vested in the county and the control of streets ... is conferred upon the city does not deprive ... 253, 210 P. 341; City of Cottonwood Falls v. Chase ... County, 113 Kan. 164, 213 P. 648; Slocum v. City of ... Wichita, 114 Kan. 260, 217 P. 297, and allied cases ... While ... it ... ...
-
Palace Garage v. Oklahoma City
... ... the police power of the city has been determined by the ... Supreme Court of Kansas in the case of Slocum v. City of ... Wichita, 114 Kan. 260, 217 P. 297, and by the Supreme ... Court of Michigan in the case of Village of North Adams ... v. Wertz, 218 ... ...