TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Kansas City v. State ex rel. Enright

The City of Kansas City, Kansas v. The State of Kansas, ex rel. E. A. Enright, County Attorney, etc.

City of Kan. City v. State ex rel. Enright, 71 P. 1127 (Kan. 1903)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 7, 1903
Docket
No. 12,856
Citations
71 P. 112766 Kan. 7791903 Kan. LEXIS 160
Disposition
Dismissed.
Summary
Error from'Wyandotte district court; E. L. Eischer judge.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam:

An actiipn was brought in the name of the state, on the relation of the county attorney of Wyandotte county, to enjoin the mayor and councilmen of the city of Kansas City, Kan., from enacting certain ordinances granting franchises to street-railway companies, in violation of chapter 199, Laws of 1895, which prohibits a city of the first class having a population of over 40,000 from granting a right to operate a street-railway along any street without having first obtained the consent of a majority of the per *780 sons owning real estate fronting upon such street. The injunction was allowed, and the defendants have instituted this proceeding in error asking that the judgment be reversed for the reason that the statute referred to is unconstitutional upon various grounds; among others, that it attempts to confer corporate powers by a special act. The plaintiffs in error present a brief in which the validity of the act is discussed at length. The defendant in error does not attempt to argue the question so presented, but asks that the cause be dismissed for the reason that since it has been pending the property-owners referred to have given their consent and the ordinances have been passed in accordance therewith, leaving no real controversy to be determined.

The facts in this regard appear to be as claimed by defendant in error, and the proceeding in error will therefore be dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 21914: 11915: 11920: 119122026peak 1912 · 2

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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