Case Title: Devena v. Common School District

Citation: 186 Kan. 166, 348 P.2d 827

Docket Number: 41,689

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1960-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
186 Kan. 166 (1960)
348 P.2d 827
ERNEST DEVENA, Appellant,
v.
COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT No. R-16, Buhler, Kansas, JOHN A. FRANZ, ALBERT C. BECKER and JOHN D. SCHMIDT, as Members of the Board of said Common School District No. R-16, and E.P. MILLS, Appellees.
No. 41,689

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 23, 1960.
Abraham Weinlood; Bill R. Cole; Kenneth F. Ehling; D. Stewart Oswalt; and John H. Shaffer, all of Hutchinson, were on the briefs for the appellant.
H.R. Branine; C.E. Chalfant; W.Y. Chalfant; and M.E. Chalfant, all of Hutchinson, were on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, C.J.:
This was an action in ejectment to recover the possession of one square acre of land. Judgment was for the defendants and the plaintiff appeals.
The conditions and circumstances under which the case was submitted to the district court require a detailed recital of the pleadings from which, omitting preliminary averments, superfluous allegations and prayers, we quote:
"PETITION.
"1. Plaintiff resides ... at ... Buhler, ...
"ANSWER
(Common School District No. R-16)
"REPLY
"4.... ..."
With issues joined as heretofore related the parties submitted the cause on a written stipulation. It reads:
Thereafter, having received and considered briefs of the parties, the pleadings and stipulation, the court found against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants and rendered the following judgment:
Thereupon plaintiff perfected the instant appeal.
From the standpoint of time and space required to fully acquaint readers of this opinion with the controlling facts it might seem that many issues are involved on this appeal. Quite to the contrary. The parties concede the sole question involved on appellate review is what right, title and interest was acquired by the School District No. 39 as the result of the condemnation proceeding of 1893. In this connection it is to be noted the appellant insists the interest acquired was of a determinable nature, which expired when the public use was abandoned, with the reversion to the landowner, while the appellees contend that the condemnation resulted in a fee simple absolute title in the school district, leaving no reversion or other interest in the landowner.
In approaching consideration of the single question involved its disposition will be simplified by pointing out and directing attention to certain matters about which there can be little if any dispute. These, so far as the parties are concerned, may be stated in the following manner.
The extent of the interest which School District No. 39 acquired by the 1893 condemnation proceeding must be determined from *170 the empowering statute, then in force and effect, and the rights of the parties exclusively depend upon its terms.
No claim is here made, nor was it made in the court below, that condemnation of the one acre tract in question was not had in conformity with the then empowering statute, hence it must be assumed the procedure therein directed was strictly followed and the school district took such title to the tract as was contemplated by the scope of its terms.
The constitution of this state places no limitation or restriction on the nature of the title to lands which may be acquired by the process of eminent domain and the legislature has full power to determine the nature of the title to be so acquired by the condemner. (Sutton v. Frazier, 183 Kan. 33, 325 P.2d 338.)
The general rule is that eminent domain statutes will be construed to authorize only the taking of an easement on or title to land sufficient for the public use intended rather than a fee title, unless the statute clearly so provides, either expressly or by necessary implication. (Sutton v. Frazier, supra.)
The empowering statute in force and effect on, or about, March 4, 1893, and on all dates of the involved condemnation proceeding, was G.S. 1889, Section 5591 (Laws of 1885, Chapter 174, Section 1). Such section of the statute reads:
It can now be stated that, notwithstanding suggestions of appellant to the contrary, this is not the first time the proper interpretation of the involved statute (G.S. 1889, Sec. 5591), insofar as it bears on the question of title, has been presented to this court for decision. The same statutory enactment, then appearing in G.S. 1901, Sec. 6131, was before the court in Buckwalter v. School District, 65 Kan. 603, 70 Pac. 605. There, although the validity of the condemnation proceeding itself which, as we have heretofore pointed out is not here in question, was principally involved, this court saw fit to interpret the statute with respect to the question of title acquired, under and by virtue of the proceeding and affirmed the judgment of the court below, holding that such proceeding was sufficient to vest title to the acre of land in dispute in the school district. In doing so it held:
And in the opinion said:
..............
..............
We believe that, standing alone, the foregoing decision, to which we adhere, requires an affirmance of the trial court's judgment. Even so it should perhaps be stated that, without it, we are convinced that when properly interpreted the provisions of G.S. 1889, Sec. 5591, particularly those heretofore underlined for purposes of emphasis, by necessary implication, compel the conclusion a school district appropriating land for a schoolhouse site in 1893, pursuant to the provisions of such section, acquired a fee simple title to the tract of land condemned for that purpose.
This conclusion, it may be added, is fortified and finds support in Skelly Oil Co. v. Kelly, 134 Kan. 176, 5 P.2d 823, where, in interpreting a somewhat similar statute, we arrived at a like conclusion and held:
In reaching the foregoing conclusions we have not overlooked contentions strenuously argued by appellant to the effect this case is governed by Sutton v. Frazier, supra. We are not disposed to here review that decision. It suffices to say that the empowering statute there involved is far less comprehensive than the one now under consideration; that the decision in Skelly Oil Co. v. Kelly, supra, was there distinguished and approved; that there we expressly said the extent to which the condemner acquired rights or title to the surface of the land condemned was not a question presently before us for decision; and that we are convinced what is said and held in such case, particularly on pages 41 to 43, incl., completely refutes any claim it should be regarded as a precedent controlling our decision in the case at bar.
Based on what has been heretofore stated and held the judgment must be and it is hereby affirmed.