Case ID: kan_123/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Harvey, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 26,949.
    The State of Kansas, ex rel. James A. Conly, County Attorney, Appellee, v. The Riverside Drainage District of Sedgwick County, Josephine Mitchell, William Henry Barnett, E. M. Martin, Alfred E. Munch et al., Appellants.
    
    OPINION DENYING A REHEARING.
    Appeal from Sedgwick district court, division No. 2; Thornton W. Sargent, judge.
    Opinion denying a rehearing filed April 18, 1927.
    (For original opinion, affirmed in part and reversed in part, see ante, p. 46, 254 Pac. 366.)
    
      Jean Madalene and O. A. Reach, both of Wichita, for the appellants.
    
      Robert C. Foulston, W. E. Holmes, D. W. Eaton, George Siejkin, Sidney Foulston, Ros Harris, V. Harris, M. P. Shearer and R. S. Elder, all of Wichita, for the appellee.
    Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. pp. 623 n. 14, 1223 n. 86, 1232 n. 63.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

In a post-opinion motion for rehearing and to modify the judgment, the appellant drainage district urges that the judgment should go no further than to require defendant to remove the dike across the Big Slough creek. Possibly that is as far as the judgment now rendered goes. Just what work will harm to be done to comply with the decree of the court is a matter to be taken up in the court below, in the event a controversy arises between the parties concerning it. The trial court still has jurisdiction of the case to see that its decree is carried into effect, and for that purpose may make any additional orders, or may, if it becomes necessary, modify its decree as necessity or justice requires.

The motion is overruled.