State ex rel. Fatzer v. Kansas City

Decision Date07 October 1950
Docket NumberNo. 37748,37748
Citation222 P.2d 714,169 Kan. 702
PartiesSTATE ex rel. FATZER, Atty. Gen., et al. v. KANSAS CITY et al.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under our Constitution, Art. 12, §§ 1 and 5, and our statute, G.S. 1935, 13-1601, a city of the first class must find statutory authority for extending its boundaries and including additional territory within its corporate limits.

2. The fact that a city, proceeding under our statute pertaining to municipal airports and flying fields, G.S. 1947 Supp., Ch. 3, Art. 1, acquires an airport and flying field without the city limits, the fact that it is granted the same rights, privileges and immunities, and is charged with the same obligations, responsibilities and duties toward such airport and flying field as it has to its property located within the limits of the city, does not have the effect of bringing such airport and flying field within the corporate limits of the city.

3. Considering an ordinance of a city of the first class, which attempted to include within the city boundaries certain territory described in the ordinance and our statute, G.S. 1935, 13-1602, it is held, that the statute did not authorize the city to include within its boundaries the territory described in the ordinance.

Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General, of Topeka, submitted the cause for plaintiff, and Charles Hobart, Assistant Attorney General, Harold H. Harding, of Kansas City, County Attorney of Wyandotte County, and T. F. Railsback, Special Assistant to Attorney General for the purpose of this case, were with him on the briefs for plaintiff.

James H. Barnes, Deputy City Attorney, and Edw. M. Boddington, both of Kansas City, argued the cause, and Atlon H. Skinner, City Attorney of Kansas City, was with them on the briefs for defendant.

Edw. M. Boddington, J. O. Emerson, and Edw. M. Boddington, Jr., all of Kansas City, were on the briefs for Kansas City Industrial Protective Ass'n, amici curiae.

Donald H. Corson, of Kansas City, and LeRoy Bradfield, of Kansas City, Mo., were on the briefs for Quindaro Township, amici curiae.

Leonard O. Thomas, of Kansas City, was on the briefs for Rural High School Districts of Wyandotte County.

HARVEY, Chief Justice.

This is an original proceedings in quo warranto, brought by the State on the relation of the attorney general and the county attorney of Wyandotte county, which questions the validity of Ordinance No. 35,841 of the city of Kansas City, the county seat of Wyandotte county. By that ordinance the city undertook to enlarge the boundaries of the city so as to include about 960 acres of land, being a part of the about 2300 acres of what is commonly referred to as the Fairfax Industrial District situated between the northeast boundary line of the city, as previously located, and the Missour River, the center of which, at all points here involved, is the boundary line between the states of Kansas and Missouri. Plaintiff attached as an exhibit to the petition a map, conceded by defendant to be substantially correct, showing the Fairfax Industrial District, the nearby portions of the city to the south and west thereof, and the area sought to be annexed to the city by defendant's Ordinance No. 35,841. To visualize the situation more clearly we have prepared from this map, omitting nonessential details, a drawing which shows the relative location of the area attempted to be annexed to the city by its Ordinance No. 35,841 to Fairfax Industrial District and to the parts of the city adjoining it on the south and west, which drawing is as follows:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

We need not detail the pleadings since the pertinent portions thereof are hereinafter fully considered and the questions raised therein are determined. After the pleadings were filed plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of a Commissioner. Considering this motion the court appointed the Honorable George Templar of Arkansas City, a member of the bar of this court as its Commissioner, with directions and authority to hear the evidence and to make suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law and report them to the court. After an extended hearing in which the parties were permitted to present all pertinent evidence they desired, the Commissioner made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and filed them with our clerk, as follows:

'Findings of Fact.

'1. The issues submitted for consideration in this cause have been joined upon plaintiff's petition, the defendant's answer, as amended, and the plaintiff's reply. The action is in the nature of Quo Warranto to determine the legality of Ordinance No. 35,841 adopted by the city of Kansas City for the purpose of annexing to the city approximately 962 acres of land near the city that was not included within the limits of the city before the annexation ordinance was adopted and published April 4, 1949.

'2. Exhibit 1, offered by the State a copy of which is attached to both plaintiff's petition and defendant's answer, shows the city of Kansas City, the land annexed by Ordinance No. 35,841, and the landmarks and area surrounding the same. All parties agree that it correctly represents the area under consideration and that it is drawn on a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet.

'3. The city of Kansas City is a municipal corporation with a population of 148,000. It is a city of the first class, located in Wyandotte County, the city limits of which were defined by Ordinance No. 32,457, before the passage and publication of Ordinance No. 35,841, the legality of which is now in question. That before the ordinance now questioned was enacted, the city was bounded on the north by the Fairfax Industrial District and the State of Missouri, on the south by Johnson County, on the east by the Fairfax Industrial District and the State of Missouri, and on the west by rural Wyandotte County.

'4. The Fairfax Industrial District consists of approximately 2,300 acres of land formerly owned by the Kansas City Industrial Land Company, which company sold tracts to various persons and corporations, including tracts of about 925 acres in the northeast portion of the district to the city of Kansas City for a municipal airport, now known as Fairfax airport.

'5. Prior to 1923, most of what is now the Fairfax Industrial District was waste and swampy land, the ground near the river was higher than that near the city limits, and in time of floods or heavy rainfall the district was frequently inundated. For its proper development as an industrial site, the area required drainage and dikes to protect it from floods. Those interested in the development of the area formed the Fairfax Drainage District, commenced work on a drainage ditch, got into litigation with the city when an attempt was made to extend the ditch across city property. This litigation was eventually compromised, a closed sewer was constructed by the Drainage District, the city paid 26/46ths of the cost and the Drainage District paid the remaining 20/46ths of the cost. Both the city and the occupants of the Fairfax Industrial District use the sewer. The sewer lies outside the city limits and is under possession, control and supervision of the officials of the sewer district. Its existence and maintenance is necessary and essential to the development of the Industrial District.

'6. For the purpose of furnishing flood protection to the Fairfax Industrial District and to protect the city's municipally owned water and light plant and the city owned 'Kansas City Public Levees,' the city of Kansas City and the Fairfax Industrial District sponsored a project in which the United States Government constructed flood protection levees and walls around the Fairfax District, including three pump houses to pump water accumulating in Fairfax District over the dikes during times of high water. Two of the pumps are located on the city owned airport. The United States Government paid for most of the cost of this project. These dikes are improvements required and necessary to keep high water of the Missouri river from flooding the area described as the Fairfax Industrial District.

'7. Prior to and at the time of the passage of City Ordinance No. 35,841, which is the ordinance in controversy in this case, the boundaries of the Fairfax Industrial District, contiguous to and touching the city of Kansas City, Kansas, are shown by the green line on the map attached to plaintiff's petition and defendant's answer, and also shown on Exhibit 1. The green line shown on the map begins at the letter 'U' in the word 'Missouri' in the center of the Missouri river, runs west on the second standard parellel to a point on the map marked 'A,' thence northerly and northwesterly to a point on the map marked 'B,' and thence northerly, westerly and northerly to the letter 'C' on the map, which is a point on the Missouri river. The boundary of the Fairfax Industrial District, touching the State of Missouri, starts at the letter 'C,' thence northerly to the Missouri-Kansas state line in the center of the Missouri river, and runs along said state line in an easterly and southerly direction to the letter 'U' in the word 'Missouri' in the center of the Missouri river, where the second standard parallel intersects the state line, the point of beginning (Exhibit 1). The south and west boundary of the Fairfax Industrial District is the city limits of the city of Kansas City, Kansas; and the north and east boundary of the Fairfax Industrial District is the State of Missouri (Exhibit 31). The district does not touch upon, nor is it adjacent to any other city, township, or political subdivision of the State of Kansas, except the city of Kansas City (Exhibit 31).

'8. The land by said ordinance No. 35,841, added and made a part of the city of Kansas City, was described therein as follows:

"The parts of Sections 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 10 South, Range 25 East, in W...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Town of Wilson v. City of Sheboygan
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 14, 2020
    ...855, 858-59 (1951) ("100-foot wide railroad right of way which extends about five-eighths of a mile"); State ex rel. Fatzer v. Kansas City, 169 Kan. 702, 222 P.2d 714, 720 (1950) (of the land annexed, "only 82 feet touches the city limits of Kansas City").12 ¶22 Here, unlike in Mt. Pleasant......
  • Genesis Health Club v. City of Wichita, No. 97,486.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 28, 2008
    ...for requiring compliance with statutory notices. This court acknowledged their protected status in State ex rel. Fatzer v. Kansas City, 169 Kan. 702, 222 P.2d 714 (1950). There, it was held that the city's statutory written notice to the county clerk and superintendent at least 10 days prio......
  • State ex rel. Martin v. City of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1957
    ...more clearly, reference is made to a drawing of the entire district in relation to the city, found in State ex rel. Fatzer v. City of Kansas City, 169 Kan. 702, 222 P.2d 714. The district is an urban area with restrictive provisions in the warranty deeds granted by its developers limiting u......
  • State ex rel. Jordan v. City of Overland Park
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 11, 1974
    ...of Kansas City, as shown by a map of the Fairfax industrial district, found on page 704 of the opinion in State ex rel. v. City of Kansas City, 169 Kan. 702, 222 P.2d 714, extended toward and intercepted both sides of a loop of the Missouri river with the river forming some sixty-five perce......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT