Case ID: kan_88/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The City of Kansas City, Appellee, v. The Sihler Hog Cholera Serum Company et al., Appellants.
    
    No. 18,206.
    OPINION DENYING A REHEARING.
    HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.
    
      Nuisance—Hog Pens—Garbage Wagons—Injunction. The city has no- ground of complaint so long as the defendants, regardless of the number' of hogs maintained, conduct the premises in question so that they do not constitute a nuisance.
    Appeal from Wyandotte court of common pleas.
    Opinion denying a rehearing filed November 9, 1912.
    Former decision adhered to.
    (For original opinion, see 87 Kan. 786, 125 Pac. 70.)
    
      C. Angevine, J. K. Cubbison, and William G. Holt, .all of Kansas City, for the appellants.
    
      R. J. Higgins, city attorney, and W. H. McCamish, assistant city attorney, for the appellee.
   Per Curiam:

At the close of the opinion in this case (Kansas City v. Serum Co., 87 Kan. 786, 125 Pac. 70), it was said:

“We have nothing to consider but the petition itself and we think its allegations taken as true show that the place complained of is so conducted as to be a nuisance and that the plaintiff is entitled to a perpetual injunction to prevent the continuance thereof; also to prevent the hauling of garbage or other refuse through the streets so as to cause offensive odors to emanate therefrom. The question, however, as to the location of defendants’ business at some other place was not before the court and is not for determination.
“The judgment is modified, and is affirmed so far as indicated in the foregoing paragraph.” (p. 791.)

In their petition for rehearing the defendants insist that that part of the order enjoining them from keeping or maintaining more than ten hogs on the premises in question should be stricken out.

The language, “the place complained of is so conducted as to be a nuisance” (p. 791) necessarily has reference to the manner of conducting the place and not to the number of hogs there kept, and the judgment was modified accordingly, for the record shows no ground for complaint so long as the defendants, regardless of the number of hogs maintained, conduct the premises in question so that they do not constitute a nuisance.

The petition for rehearing is denied.