Case Title: Fairfax Drainage District v. City of Kansas City

Citation: 190 Kan. 308, 374 P.2d 35

Docket Number: 42,878

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1962-08-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
190 Kan. 308 (1962)
374 P.2d 35
Re: Petition of Kansas City, Kansas, to Annex Territory (Fairfax Airport). FAIRFAX DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 42,878

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed August 28, 1962.
Joseph H. McDowell, of Kansas City, argued the cause, and Guy E. Stanley, of Kansas City, was with him on the briefs for the appellant, Fairfax Drainage District.
J.W. Mahoney, of Kansas City, argued the cause, and C.W. Brenneisen, Jr., of Kansas City, was with him on the briefs for the appellee, City of Kansas City, Kansas.
Leonard O. Thomas and James J. Lysaught, both of Kansas City, Kansas, amici curiae.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, C.J.:
This controversy stems from a proceeding by the City of Kansas City, Kansas, to enlarge the city limits.
On April 11, 1960, the City (appellee) filed a petition with the Board of County Commissioners of Wyandotte County (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for the enlargement of the boundaries of the City to include the Fairfax Municipal Airport. The land was definitely described by metes and bounds. The petition concluded:
The area described in the petition included all of the airport and dikes rights-of-way on two sides along the Missouri River. The Fairfax Drainage District (appellant) owned the dikes which comprised approximately fifty acres and also held easements on twelve to fifteen acres of land covered by the airport.
On the first day of the hearing before the Board the Drainage District objected to the dikes being included in the City's proposed annexation. The City then requested the Board to sustain the protest and remove the land covered by the dikes from the proposed area. The Drainage District objected to this procedure.
After an extended hearing the Board passed a resolution enlarging the boundaries of the City which, so far as here pertinent, reads:
The description, by lengthy metes and bounds, was omitted from the abstract but it is conceded that it did change the legal description from that set out in the petition so as to eliminate the fifty acres covered by the dikes.
The resolution of the Board approving the enlargement of the boundaries of the City was dated October 6, 1960. On the same day the Drainage District filed its appeal in the district court of Wyandotte County. We note no further action in the case until April 19, 1961, when the Drainage District filed a motion for declaratory judgment. This motion challenged the interpretation and validity of previous ordinances annexing territory to the City.
*310 The case was tried before the district court on the evidence and exhibits submitted to the Board and other stipulated facts. The court made findings of fact which, corrected to reflect the court's modifying order and a nunc pro tunc order, are as follows:
The Court made the following conclusions of law:
The Drainage District, after filing its appeal in the district court, filed a motion for declaratory judgment challenging the validity of four previous ordinances extending the boundaries of the City. It challenges, in particular, Ordinance No. 41525 which brought the city limits adjacent to the airport. The Drainage District suggests that if this ordinance is held invalid the city limits are not adjacent to the airport and G.S. 1949, 12-501, under which the City proceeded, would not be applicable. The statute applies only "whenever any city desires to enlarge the limits thereof from territory adjacent thereto, ..."
The first obstacle facing the Drainage District is that it has no legal standing to raise the issue. This court has held in a long line of decisions that the validity of an ordinance annexing territory to a city can only be challenged in an action brought in the name of the state by its proper officers.
In Chaves v. Atchison, 77 Kan. 176, 93 Pac. 624, it was held:
See, also, Price v. City of McPherson, 92 Kan. 82, 139 Pac. 1162 in which the two cases above mentioned are cited.
In Smith v. City of Emporia, 168 Kan. 187, 211 P.2d 101, we held:
And in the opinion, after reviewing the earlier decisions, said:
In the recent case of State, ex rel., v. City of Kansas City, 186 Kan. 190, 350 P.2d 37, this court stated:
Even though a declaratory judgment action were a proper method of challenging the validity of a city ordinance, it would not lie in this case. Before an action for declaratory judgment can be maintained an actual controversy must exist. There can be no actual controversy in the absence of a proper party plaintiff. Boeing Airplane Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 164 Kan. 149 188 P.2d 429, holds:
There is an additional reason why the Drainage District's attempt to challenge the validity of the previous ordinances must fail. The validity of an ordinance extending the boundaries of a city cannot be attacked in a collateral proceeding.
*314 See Topeka v. Dwyer, 70 Kan. 244, 78 Pac. 417, where it is held:
See, also, Fletcher v. Weigel, 152 Kan. 104, 102 P.2d 1055, where it is said:
The Drainage District urges numerous objections challenging the validity of the order of the Board enlarging the boundaries of the City. Before considering the objections it might be well to review the statute giving the right to appeal from such order. The right to appeal is provided by G.S. 1949, 12-502a, which reads:
G.S. 1949, 12-502, after providing for notice, states:
It would appear that the term "manifest injury" as used in 12-502, supra, refers to the injury which is legally sufficient to cause the appellant to be "aggrieved" under 12-502a, supra.
The district court in a memorandum opinion presented an able discussion of this question. We quote pertinent portions of the memorandum:
If the Drainage District is not aggrieved it has no right to challenge the Board's order on appeal. Appeals are permitted only to correct material errors injuriously affecting the appellant.
In Anderson v. Carder, 159 Kan. 1, 150 P.2d 754, we said:
..............
Some of the objections raised by the Drainage District cover alleged grievances suffered by other parties with which the District is not concerned. A litigant on appeal cannot champion the rights of a party in which it has no interest. See Heil v. Heil, 40 Kan. 69, 19 Pac. 340, where it is held:
See, also, syllabus 3 of Scott v. Linn, 126 Kan. 195, 268 Pac. 84, which reads:
The record discloses nothing that would indicate the order complained of has caused any manifest injury to the Drainage District, nor given it any cause to be aggrieved. This is all that is necessary to require an affirmance of the trial court's judgment under our comparatively recent decision in City of Salina v. Thompson, Trustee of Mo. Pac. Rly. Co., 169 Kan. 579, 220 P.2d 147, construing the involved statutory provisions (12-501, 12-502 and 12-502a, supra).
Notwithstanding the record fails to disclose any grievance on the part of the Drainage District we have, because of the seriousness with which able counsel argue their objections, carefully considered all questions raised and find nothing which would warrant the sustaining of such objections or justify our disturbing the findings of fact and conclusions of law as pronounced by the district court.
The judgment is affirmed.