TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Board of County Commissioners v. Haskell

The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Wyandotte v. W. W. Haskell

Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Haskell, 154 P. 1029 (Kan. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 12, 1916
Docket
No. 19,941
Judges
West
Citations
154 P. 102997 Kan. 3041916 Kan. LEXIS 288
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. TAXATION' — Special Assessments — Sewers—Limitation of .Actions. A special assessment to construct a sewer was levied on land which it is claimed could not he drained or benefited by such sewer. Held, that having let the thirty-day period elapse for instituting an action to set aside or in any way contest or enjoin the levy, such defense is now barred.
Summary
Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 1; Edward L. Fischer, 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 — West

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

*305 The opinion of the court was delivered by West, J.:

This was an action to foreclose a tax lien for special sewer assessments. The land was adjudged subject to the lien, and the owners appeal.

It was found that the special-assessments were ascertained and levied in 1903* and that no suit or action was instituted to set aside or in any way contest or enjoin the levy until the answer in this action was filed, more than eight years after such ascertainment and levy. The statute covering this case provides that—

“No suit nor action of any kind shall be maintained in any court, to set aside or in any way contest or enjoin the levy . . . after the expiration of thirty days from the time the amount due ... is ascertained.” (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 994.)

Authorities are cited to show that no right existed to assess the land in question because it could not be drained or benefited by the sewer, but under the rule now well established in this state it is too late to raise that question. (Rockwell v. Junction City, 92 Kan. 513 , 141 Pac. 299 ; Rockwell v. Junction City, 93 Kan. 1 , 142 Pac. 268 ; Railway Co. v. City of Chanute, 95 Kan. 161 , 147 Pac. 836 ; Arment v. Dodge City, ante, p. 94, 154 Pac. 219 .)

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1918: 11920: 11921: 11923: 11936: 119182026peak 1918 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Riverside Park Ass'n v. City of Hutchinson171 P. 2 (Kan. 1918)
  2. Norton v. Board of County Commissioners199 P. 388 (Kan. 1921)
  3. Randall v. City of Arkansas City217 P. 298 (Kan. 1923)
  4. Field v. Board of County Commissioners191 P. 315 (Kan. 1920)
  5. Addis v. City of Kansas City53 P.2d 809 (Kan. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Addis v. City of Kansas City53 P.2d 809 (Kan. 1936)
  2. Randall v. City of Arkansas City217 P. 298 (Kan. 1923)
  3. Norton v. Board of County Commissioners199 P. 388 (Kan. 1921)
  4. Field v. Board of County Commissioners191 P. 315 (Kan. 1920)
  5. Riverside Park Ass'n v. City of Hutchinson171 P. 2 (Kan. 1918)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Rockwell v. City of Junction City, 141 P. 299 (Kan. 1914) 20
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. City of Chanute, 147 P. 836 (Kan. 1915) 18
Rockwell v. City of Junction, 142 P. 268 (Kan. 1914) 10
Arment v. City of Dodge City, 154 P. 219 (Kan. 1916) 6

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