TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tilford v. City of Olathe

J. C. Tilford v. The City of Olathe

Tilford v. City of Olathe, 44 Kan. 721 (1890)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1890
Judges
Green
Citations
44 Kan. 721
Headnotes
'Taxation — Farming Land — Case Followed. Farming land adjacent to a city of the second class, which has been platted into blocks and lots, may by ordinance be annexed to such city. (City of Emporia v. Smith, 42 Kas. 433, followed.)
Summary
Error from Johnson District Court. Injunction refused at the September term, 1888. The •opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Green

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion by Green, C.:

This action was commenced in the district court of Johnson county, to perpetually enjoin and restrain the city of Olathe from exercising any authority over certain territory which the city had by ordinance annexed to and included within its corporate bounds; and also to restrain the city assessor from assessing the annexed territory for the year 1888. The injunction was denied in the court below, and the plaintiff in error brings the case here for review.

The case was tried in the district court upon an agreed statement of facts, which showed that the annexed territory had been platted as “Stevenson Place,” and duly acknowledged ; that such plat had been filed in the office of the register of deeds of Johnson county; and that the territory included within Stevenson Place was adjacent to the city of Olathe. The facts in this case bring the real question in controversy within the rule laid down in the case of City of Emporia v. Smith, 42 Kas. 433 , where this court held that owners of farming land that lies adjacent to a city of the second class, who voluntarily subdivide their adjacent lands into blocks and lots, and thus create the conditions upon which cities of the second class are authorized to make their subdivisions a part of the city, cannot defeat such annexation by a claim that the extent of their homestead is reduced to one acre, without their consent.

We see no distinction between the case at bar and the case above cited; and we deem it unnecessary to enter upon any further discussion of the homestead right which was claimed in that case as well as in this, and content ourselves by recommending an affirmance of the judgment in this case upon the authority of that case.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1898: 11926: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Paul v. Town of Walkerton50 N.E. 725 (Ind. 1898)
  2. Wertz v. City of Ottumwa208 N.W. 511 (Iowa 1926)

Most recent

  1. Wertz v. City of Ottumwa208 N.W. 511 (Iowa 1926)
  2. Paul v. Town of Walkerton50 N.E. 725 (Ind. 1898)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
City of Emporia v. Smith, 42 Kan. 433 (1889) 22

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list