Gardner v. Benn
M. N. Gardner v. R. B. Benn, as County Treasurer, etc.
Syllabus
Summary
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:
The ordinance of the city of Greenleaf annexing certain portions of Beach’s addition sufficiently described the several parcels or lots of the addition which it-was intended should be taken into the city, using practically the same designations employed in platting the territory. The word “block” does not appear in the original plat, but the several tracts are numbered as described in the ordinance.
The validity of the act of annexation is not open to collateral attack, and can not be questioned by any party other than the state. For this reason alone the plaintiff was not entitled to enjoin the collection of taxes, levied by the city upon the territory in controversy. (Topeka v. Dwyer, 70 Kan. 244 ; Railway Co. v. Lyon County, 72 Kan. 13 ; Chaves v. Atchison, 77 Kan. 176 .)
The judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.