The Amusement Syndicate Company v. Topeka
| Decision Date | 12 December 1903 |
| Docket Number | 12,875 |
| Parties | THE AMUSEMENT SYNDICATE COMPANY v. THE CITY OF TOPEKA et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1903.
Error from Shawnee district court; Z. T. HAZEN, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Garver & Larimer, and G. C. Clemens, for plaintiff in error.
Charles F. Spencer, W. C. Ralston, and Loomis, Blair & Scandrett for defendants in error.
This was an action by the Amusement Syndicate Company to enjoin the city of Topeka and its mayor and council from permitting the city building, in which there is a large auditorium, from being used for public entertainments for profit.
Plaintiff alleged that it was a corporation owning an opera-house in Topeka; that it was organized for the purpose of giving public entertainments for profit, and that it contributes large sums of money in the payment of state, county and city taxes. It also alleged that the city of Topeka erected with public funds a large city building, used in part for municipal purposes in making provision for city offices, a fire department, and other public purposes; that in the building is a large auditorium, furnished so as to seat 4500 persons, with a large stage, suitable for political conventions, lectures, addresses, and like gatherings; that the city officers have wrongfully allowed and authorized the holding of entertainments for private profit in this building, and were arranging and contemplating the giving of other entertainments at fixed charges; that this course had greatly interfered with plaintiff's business and the profits derived therefrom, and that its continuation will work irreparable injury to it.
We cannot decide the principal questions discussed here, for the reason that the action is brought by one who has no right to challenge and correct the administration of purely public affairs. The plaintiff is alleged to be a large taxpayer, it is true, but it has been repeatedly held that a private party cannot maintain an action against public officers, where the acts complained of affect merely the interests of the public generally. Before a private party can be allowed to maintain an action to challenge the conduct of public business, he must allege an interest personal and peculiar to himself that is not shared by and which does not affect the general public. Assuming it to be true that the city is using its building in a manner not warranted by law it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perrault v. Robinson
... ... of amusement on Sunday. While chap. 82 relates to the ... commission form of ... in favor of subscribing to the stock of a railroad company, ... and that the defendants, who had violated the order, were not ... the municipality. ( Amusement Syndicate Co. v ... Topeka , 68 Kan. 801, 74 P. 606; Craft v. Jackson ... County ... ...
-
Simmons v. Board of Education of City of Crosby
... ... the manager of, the Auditorium Theatre Company, a corporation ... engaged in the business of operating a theatre in the ... 231; Bell v. Platteville, 71 Wis. 139, ... 36 N.W. 831; Amusement Syndicate Co. v. Topeka, 68 ... Kan. 801, 74 P. 606; Anderson v ... ...
-
Simmons v. Bd. of Educ. of Crosby
...P. 828;Collins v. City of Keokuk, 147 Iowa, 605, 125 N. W. 231;Bell v. Platteville, 71 Wis. 139, 36 N. W. 831;Amusement Syndicate Co. v. City of Topeka, 68 Kan. 801, 74 P. 606;Anderson v. City of Montevideo, 137 Minn. 179, 162 N. W. 1073. The right of action in a taxpayer's suit is predicat......
-
Rodenbeck v. Darby
...plaintiff having no right to maintain the action, the judgment of the trial court denying the injunction will be affirmed." Pages 802, 803 of 68 Kan., 74 P. 606. for appellants suggest that the rule stated in the case just cited no longer prevails. It is a sound and salutary one, and this c......