364 145 315, 316 77 167, 174 849 341 Redwine v. Brown, 10 Ga. 311, 319, 365 Supervisors v. Schenck, 5 Wall. 772, Rosebaugh v. Saffin, 10 Ohio, 32, 420 Table M. M. Co. v. Wallers, D. M. 275 397 218, 219 Thorne v. San Francisco, 4 Cal. 127, Tillottson v. Grapes, 4 N. H. 444, 479 233 77 204 366 397 Trull v. Eastman, 3 Metc. 121, Walker v. Simpson, 7 Watts & S. 83, 146 State v. Hancock Co., 11 Ohio St. 183, 174 Watson v. Atwood, 25 Conn. 313, 78 204 396 310 310 114 NOTES ON THE KANSAS REPORTS CASES IN 12 12 KAN. 9, KANSAS PAC. RY. CO. v. McBRATNEY Possessory actions-Title to support.-Cited in Jones v. Hollister, 51 Kan. 310, 32 Pac. 1115; Laughlin v. Fariss, 7 Okl. 1, 50 Pac. 254-holding that under the Code an equitable title to real estate was sufficient to sustain an action to recover possession; Lewis v. Hamilton, 26 Colo. 263, 58 Pac. 196, holding that under the Code a mortgagor's equitable title, with the legal right of possession, will support an action for possession as against the legal title of a purchaser at a void foreclosure sale; McClung v. Penny, 11 Okl. 474, 69 Pac. 499, holding that a homestead entryman, who has complied with the federal statutes, has such an equitable title as will support an action of forcible entry and detainer to recover possession; Black v. Jackson, 177 U. S. 349, 20 Sup. Ct. 648, 44 L. Ed. 801, holding that an entryman out of possession and having a decision by the land office in his favor may obtain possession by an action of forcible detainer, without resorting to extraordinary equitable remedies. 12 KAN. 14, MILLER v. TOWN OF PALERMO Public rights-Right of individual to assert.-Cited in School Dist. No. 13 v. State ex rel. School Dist. No. 63, 15 Kan. 43; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. State ex rel. Sanders, 22 Kan. 1-holding that under statute any person or persons feeling aggrieved by failure of a county school superintendent, on forming a new school district out of part of an existing district, to apportion the property to which each district was entitled, had a right of appeal to the board of county commissioners; State ex rel. Taggart v. Addison, 76 Kan. 699, 92 Pac. 581, holding that an individual may bring action in his own name to recover possession of an office to which he is entitled; Stiles v. City of Guthrie, 3 Okl. 26, 41 Pac. 383, on point that private citizen and taxpayer could not maintain action against public officers, where act complained of affected only public interest; Thompson v. Haskell, 24 Okl. 70, 102 Pac. 700, holding that a resident taxpayer of territory proposed to be detached from a county, or a resident taxpayer of that county outside the territory to be detached could not contest the election held to detach such territory or enjoin the Governor's proclamation of the result. Same-Quo warranto.-Cited in State ex rel. Williams v. McLaughlin, 15 Kan. 228, 22 Am. Rep. 264, holding that under statute quo warranto could not be maintained against public officers by one having no other interest than as a citizen and taxpayer; Baughman v. Nation, 76 Kan. 668, 92 Pac. 548, holding v.12 K.NOTES-1 that a police judge, whose only interest in the office of judge of the city court. apart from that of a citizen and taxpayer, was the incidental loss of fees in prosecutions in that court, instead of before him, could not maintain quo warranto to oust the judge of the city court; Campbell v. Sargent, 85 Kan. 590, 118 Pac. 71, holding that, to state a cause of action in quo warranto to oust one holding a public office, an individual plaintiff must allege a particular injury, as that he is entitled to the office; Mills v. State ex rel. Smith, 2 Wash. 566, 27 Par. 560, holding that under statutes the mayor of a city had no such particular interest in the office of city councilman as to entitle him to maintain quo warrants to oust an alleged usurper of that office. Cited in note in 125 Am. St. Rep. 641, as to when quo warranto may be maintained by private person; in 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 688, as to who may maintain quo warranto to test validity of organization of municipal corporation or political subdivision of state. Same-Calling officers to account.-Cited in McMillen v. Butler, 15 Kan 62; Nixon v. School District No. 92, 32 Kan. 510, 4 Pac. 1017-holding that merely being a resident, a citizen, an elector, or a taxpayer, or all combined, did not authorize a private individual to bring county officers into court to answer for their official conduct. Private rights-Right of public to assert.-Cited in Center Tp. v. Hunt, 16 Kan. 430; State v. Shufford, 77 Kan. 263, 94 Pac. 137-holding an action cannot be brought in the name of the public merely for the benefit of an individual: State ex rel. Taggart v. Addison, 76 Kan. 699, 92 Pac. 581, holding that, where a private individual is wrongfully deprived of an office, there is a public interest which makes the state's attorney a proper party plaintiff in quo warranto. 12 KAN. 17, MASTERS v. McHOLLAND Duty of litigant to be present at every session of court.-Cited in Green v. Bulkley, 23 Kan. 130; Turner v. Miller, 28 Kan. 44-holding that litigant, to protect his rights, must be present at every session at which his case might be determined, until final disposition; First Nat. Bank of Parsons v. Wentworth, 28 Kan. 183, holding that litigants who rely upon habit of or understanding with clerk to notify when case is set for trial do so at their peril; Higgins v. Curtis, 39 Kan. 283, 18 Pac. 207, holding that party not ascertaining from inquiry or rules of board of county commissioners when his matter would be tak en up could not complain of action thereon in his absence. Eminent domain-Opening of "private roads and highways."-Distinguished in Clark v. Board of Com'rs of Mitchell County, 69 Kan. 542, 77 Pac. 284, 66 L. R. A. 965, holding that, under statute (Laws 1874, c. 112) for opening "private roads or highways," taking of private property was unconstitutional as a taking for private and not for public use. Same-Purposes of appropriation.-Cited in note in 102 Am. St. Rep. 827, on uses for which power of eminent domain cannot be exercised. Continuances. Cited in Smith v. Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528; Weems v. MeDavitt, 49 Kan. 260, 30 Pac. 481-holding every court, except as limited by statute, has inherent power to continue proceedings from term to term. Highways-Width.-Cited in Board of Com'rs of Johnson County v. Minnear, 72 Kan. 326, 83 Pac. S28, holding that, under statute, road only 16% feet in width and principally used by private owners for access to public highway had the character of a public highway. Same-Cul de sac.-Cited and approved in Cemetery Ass'n v. Meninger, 14 Kan. 312, holding that a road leading from a thoroughfare to a cemetery and farm, with no outlet at that end, was a public highway. |