TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

School District No. 141 v. Board of County Commissioners

School District No. 141 of Sedgwick County v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Kingman

Sch. Dist. No. 141 v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 251 P. 631 (Kan. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 30, 1926
Docket
No. 27,340
Judges
Marshall
Citations
251 P. 631122 Kan. 2131927 Kan. LEXIS 1

Opinion of the Court — Marshall

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Marshall, J.:

The plaintiff, by mandamus, seeks to compel the board of county commissioners of Kingman county to pay the tuition of high-school pupils who resided in Kingman county and who attended the high school in the plaintiff high-school district in Sedgwick county. Both counties were operating under the Barnes high-school law.

*214 1. The petition states facts which bring the case completely within the rule declared in Byers Rural High School v. Stafford County Comm’rs, 121 Kan. 832 , so far as the liability of Kingman county to the plaintiff district is concerned. No good purpose will be served by stating in detail the facts in this case. The rule of law declared in Byers Rural High School v. Stafford County, supra, is adhered to and followed.

2. The defendant has filed a motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus, one ground of which is that inasmuch as the action is one to recover money, the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and mandamus will not lie. The action is one for the recovery of money. Payment has been refused. Payment cannot be compelled by mandamus. (Oberhelman v. Larimer, 110 Kan. 587 , 204 Pac. 678 , School District v. Collins, 110 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 746 ; Kreipe, Receiver, v. National Bank, 114 Kan. 910 , 220 Pac. 1061 ; Dolman and Clark v. Kingman County, 116 Kan. 201 , 226 Pac. 240 ; 38 C. J. 558.)

The motion to quash is allowed.

Since the plaintiff cannot prevail by mandamus, the action is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1928: 11929: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Dolman v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 226 P. 240 (Kan. 1924) 10
Kreipe v. Commercial Nat'l Bank, 220 P. 1061 (Kan. 1923) 4
Byers Rural High Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 250 P. 313 (Kan. 1926) 3
Sch. Dist. No. 47 v. Collins, 204 P. 746 (Kan. 1922) 1
City of Baxter Springs v. Estate of Bilger, 204 P. 678 (Kan. 1922) 9
Oberhelman v. Larimer, 204 P. 687 (Kan. 1922) 5

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