Legal Opinion

Holly v. City of Neodesha

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided November 9, 1912No. 17,807PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from Wilson district court.

1Opinion of the Court

*104The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The plaintiff'sued the defendant for damages resulting from the cutting off of the city water from his greenhouse, and recovered. The city appeals.

The city owns its waterworks. In October, 1902, on motion made in the city council, it was ordered that the plaintiff be furnished water at the rate of $15 per year for the remainder of the year 1902, and for the year 1903. This rate was fixed with reference to the plaintiff’s business as the proprietor of a greenhouse. On December 30, 1903, an ordinance took effect fixing water rates which…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kansas Pacific Railway v. MihlmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
  2. Westlake & Button v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
  3. Sherman Center Town Co. v. LeonardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
  4. St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
  5. Indiana Natural & Illuminating Gas Co. v. AnthonyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1900

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Atkinson v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  2. Dodd v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
  3. Schultz v. Town of LakeportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Cain v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1966
  5. Wilson v. National Refining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1928

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API