Legal Opinion

Conklin v. City of Hutchinson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided November 8, 1902No. 12,297PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error from Reno district court; M. P. Simpson, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J. :

By chapter 301, Laws of 1895, the legislature sought to vacate the lots, blocks, streets and alleys of four additions to the city of Hutchinson. Sections 1 and 5 of said chapter read:

“Section 1. That all lots, blocks, streets and alleys in G. O. Millar’s north addition to the city of Hutchinson, Reno county, Kansas, be and the same *583are hereby vacated; and that the fee in such streets and alleys shall revert báck to and be in the owners of such lots and blocks; such real estate being the northwest quarter of section number seven (7), township…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Slauson v. City of RacineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
  2. Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
  3. City of Wyandotte v. WoodSupreme Court of Kansas · 1870

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Smith v. HaneySupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
  2. Levitt v. City of WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
  3. State ex rel. City of Shawano v. EngelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920

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

Powered by the Exa API