State v. Reno County Com'rs
| Decision Date | 07 January 1888 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, on the relation of S. B. Bradford, Attorney General, v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF RENO COUNTY |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1888
Original Proceeding in Mandamus.THE opinion herein, filed at the session of the court in January 1888, states the material facts.
S.B Bradford, attorney general, for The State; Edwin A. Austin of counsel.
Whiteside & Gleason, for defendant in error.
The defendant has filed a motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus, and thereby two questions are raised which go to the sufficiency of the writ. They are as follows: First, that there is a misjoinder of causes of action; second, that the law under which the elections are sought to be called has been repealed; therefore, that the elections, if called, would be void and the bonds invalid.
It appears from the writ that on the 25th day of May, 1887, the petitions of more than two-fifths of the resident tax-payers of Sumner, Roscoe, Albion, Loda, and Bell townships, of Reno county, were presented to the board of commissioners of that county, asking for elections to submit propositions to subscribe to the capital stock of the Kansas Southwestern Railway Company. The petitions of Sumner, Roscoe, Albion and Loda were duly canvassed, and found sufficient. In the petition of Bell township there was some error, and it was permitted to be withdrawn for correction, but was re-signed and re-filed on May 27, 1887, the date to which the board adjourned. Upon that date the board refused to consider and canvass the petition of the resident tax-payers of Bell township, and refused to fix the date of the elections of the other townships. These proceedings were commenced in this court on June 13, 1887; the alternative writ commanding action on June 21, following. We think the motion as to misjoinder well taken. Each township is entitled to a separate election, and the question of the rights of one township is in no wise dependent upon the rights of the others. We do not think the state can join these various and separate causes of action in this proceeding. (Civil Code §§ 35, 83, 89.) The state, however, will be permitted to file several alternative writs, and an action will be docketed for each of said writs, and the same will be proceeded in without further service. The defendants, however, will have twenty days from this date to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas Turnpike Project, In re, 40335
...a single defendant but have entirely separate and different ownerships, they may not join in one action. State ex rel. Bradford v. Commissioners of Reno Co., 38 Kan. 317, 16 P. 337; Leaven-worth, N. & S. R. Co. v. Wilkins, 45 Kan. 674, 26 P. 16; Harrod v. Farrar, 68 Kan. 153, 74 P. 624. Thi......
-
Merrill v. Suffa
... ... Appeal ... from District Court, City and County of Denver; F. T ... Johnson, Judge ... Mandamus ... by ... 44, 69 P. 1067; ... Faust v. Smith, 3 Colo.App. 505, 34 P. 261; State ex rel. v ... Commissioners, 38 Kan. 317, 16 P. 337; Co. Comm'rs. v ... ...
-
State ex rel. v. Peterson
...78 P.2d 60 147 Kan. 626 STATE ex rel. v. PETERSON, County Clerk, et al. [*] No. 33792.Supreme Court of KansasApril 9, 1938 [78 P.2d 61] ... action. State ex rel. v. Com'rs of Reno Co., 38 ... Kan. 317, 16 P. 337, is cited and relied upon. That was an ... action that involved ... ...
-
Leavenworth
... ... the district court of Atchison county, February 4, 1888. To ... this petition the defendant below presented a otion to ... require the plaintiffs to separately state and number their ... alleged causes of action, which motion was ... Winter, 7 ... Nev. 803; The State ex rel. v. Comm'rs of ... Reno Co., 38 Kan. 317; Durein v. Pontious, 34 ... id. 353; Jeffers v. Forbes, ... ...