The Howard Mills Company v. The Schwartz Lumber and Coal Company
Decision Date | 11 April 1908 |
Docket Number | 15,349 |
Citation | 77 Kan. 599,95 P. 559 |
Parties | THE HOWARD MILLS COMPANY v. THE SCHWARTZ LUMBER AND COAL COMPANY |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1908.
Error from Sedgwick district court; THOMAS C. WILSON, judge.
STATEMENT.
ON April 3, 1906, the Howard Mills Company began proceedings to condemn certain real estate for its use which belonged to the Schwartz Lumber and Coal Company. During such procedure, and on May 17, 1906, the Schwartz Lumber and Coal Company filed its petition in the district court of Sedgwick county to enjoin this appropriation of its property. The defendant answered, and when the case was reached for trial it was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts which, so far as necessary to show the questions presented in this court, reads:
The land sought to be appropriated adjoins that already owned, occupied and used by the Howard Mills Company in its business.
Upon the final hearing a permanent injunction was granted. From that order the Howard Mills Company brings the case here for review.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. EMINENT DOMAIN--Flour-mill Operated by Steam-power. A private corporation owning a mill operated by steam-power, and having for its purpose the manufacture and sale of flour and feed, cannot exercise the right of eminent domain for the purpose of improving and enlarging such business.
2. EMINENT DOMAIN -- "Public Mills." The provisions of chapter 65 of the General Statutes of 1901 do not apply to mills used merely for the purpose of manufacturing flour and feed for sale, and such mills are not made public mills by that act.
3. EMINENT DOMAIN -- Statute Construed. Section 1366 of the General Statutes of 1901 does not confer the right of eminent domain upon a mill or other manufacturing corporation which is merely engaged in the manufacture of flour and feed for sale by the use of steam-power.
Smyth & Helm, for plaintiff in error.
H. C. Sluss, Kos Harris, and V. Harris, for defendant in error.
Do the foregoing facts show the defendant, the Howard Mills Company to be a public corporation having power to exercise the right of eminent domain? This is the question presented. The defendant insists that this question is answered in its favor by the statute of this state. In support of its claim reference is made to various statutes relating to mills, among which is an act that took effect June 1, 1863, and is still in force, now being chapter 65 of the General...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Washington Water Power Co. v. Waters
... ... 19 Idaho 595 THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY, Appellant, v. CHARLES WATERS, BERTHA E ... 8, 71 P. 541; Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Peterson, 12 ... Idaho 769, 118 Am. St ... Mass. 480, 14 N.E. 751; Howard Mills Co. v. Schwartz ... Lumber & Coal Co., 77 ... ...
-
Inspiration Consol. Copper Co. v. New Keystone Copper Co.
... ... 257 INSPIRATION CONSOLIDATED COPPER COMPANY, Appellant, v. NEW KEYSTONE COPPER COMPANY, ... 267, ... 34 P. 936, and Healey Lumber Co. v. Morris, ... 33 Wash. 490, 99 Am. St. Rep ... 579, 66 ... L.R.A. 387, 57 A. 1001; Howard Mill Co. v ... Lumber Co., 77 Kan. 599, 18 ... ...
-
German Alliance Insurance Company v. Ike Lewis
...the validity of a Kansas statute, it is well to note that the supreme court of that state in Howard Mills Co. v. Schwartz Lumber & Coal Co. 77 Kan. 599, 18 L.R.A.(N.S.) 356, 95 Pac. 559, recognizes that there is a difference, and adjudges accordingly. It there cited numerous decisions from ......
-
State Highway Commission v. Ford
... ... use. Howard Mills Co. v. Schwartz Lumber & Coal Co., ... 77 ... ...
-
CHAPTER 1
...validity of a Kansas statute it is well to note that the Supreme Court of that State in Howard Mills Co. v. Schwartz Lumber & Coal Co., 77 Kan. 599 (1908), recognizes that there is a difference and adjudges accordingly. It there cited numerous decisions from other States and in defining a p......