Luttgen v. Ergenbright

After a prolonged effort to comprehend the logic in the court’s opinion, I am not convinced that the ruling of the district court was correct. This is not a case in which some governmental entity owned a street which was never a part of any addition but was designated as a street in the original plat of a township site as was true in the case of Railway Co. v. Showalter, 57 Kan. 681, 47 Pac. 831, relied upon in the opinion. In the present case the alley was created by, in connection with, and as a part of Schweiter’s Fourth Addition. The plat thereof so shows. It was never a part of the land…