Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. Ball
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Shawnee District Gowrt. Ball had judgment for $135 and costs, at the May Term 1875 of the distinct court, T). B., judge pro tern., presiding, and the Pailway Company brings the case here. All necessary facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
The only questions in this case are, whether under the stock-killing law of 1874 proof of demand is essential to a recovery, and if so whether there was such proof. .The first question must be answered in the affirmative, and *536the second in the negative. The statute is a stringent one, and imposes new burdens upon railroad corporations; and he who would avail himself of its benefits ought to bring himself clearly within its terms. The language of the second section is, “In case such railway company shall fail for thirty days after demand to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McNaught v. C. & N. W. R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Cole v. C. & N. W. R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1874
3Cited by8 opinions
- Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Gulf Rld. v. McHenrySupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- Becker v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- Chicago, Kansas & Western Railroad v. TottenCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1895
- Central Branch Union Pacific Rld. v. WaltersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad v. HolcombSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.